3 ms·
Right? Data structure wise, layers are a stack. We've got fancier things we could use to generate images. What about a digraph? A node graph editor for composi
by MrLeap 6y ago
Right? Data structure wise, layers are a stack. We've got fancier things we could use to generate images.
What about a digraph? A node graph editor for compositing would be pretty cool. It'd get you kind of what you have in blender / unreal / unity's vfx graph / shader graph.
I like the push for everything to be non destructive, but it'd be cool if I could, in a reduced input "live" kind of way, see before/after choices -- so I can make adjustments like an optometrist.
I make a lot of texture masks for interactive 3d stuff, the digraph approach would be nice if it let me bitpack things in a more complicated way into color channels than what's possible now.
Maybe what I'm actually asking for is more photoshop-y like tools in blender?
- FreakyT 6y agoI think if you go too far down this path you end up with a tool that’s utterly incomprehensible to the majority of your user base. Layers may be simplistic, but they’re relatively easy to understand.
- gmfawcett 6y agoWith layer groups, it's rather more a tree than a stack. A full DAG approach might be interesting.