PDA

View Full Version : bring back 8bf.p!



faulknermano
12-29-2004, 07:33 AM
there was this plugin once upon a time (circa- LW5.5/5.6) that allowed you the take photoshop plugins and use them as image filters. it was really a nice little tool that added a lot of flexibility (and convenience). i propose to bring it back and get it up to speed for newer versions photoshop's plugins.

(it also wouldnt hurt to be able to support plugins of other compositing apps as well, like after effects, and combustion).

Castius
12-29-2004, 08:22 AM
you got my vote to bring that back. I loved that feature.

Lewis
12-29-2004, 09:29 AM
Hi !

I must say i never used that plugin in old days (didn't know about it) but i wonder what would be purpose of that ?

If you can use PSplugins that would mean that you already have PS installed and that plugin in PS plugins dir - right ? If that's the case i don't see point of applying that filter in LW (as image filter) when you can load render and apply it in Pshop later. It's always better to have initial file without image filler applied since you can adjust values without need to rerender again ?

Maybe i'm missing soemething so please correct me if i'm mistaken :).

cheers

Mylenium
12-29-2004, 01:30 PM
Yepp, I'm with Lewis here and I don't think that this is a very useful request. Unless you can have full access to all the parameters of a filter, it is pointless. That's the thing why the old 8bf.p failed - it couldn't display the controls for about 80% of the filters out there and hence was useless most of the time. It's really much simpler to have a batch action in Photoshop and do it there.

Moving on to other filter formats such as from AE would be even more difficult - most parameters are animatable, some of them are context sensitive to native behaviors/ switches in AE and LW cannot even do such simple things as the several blending modes required by some of them. Even other compositing apps cannot completely mimic this though they have an AEX host plugin (combustion*, Digital Fusion).

You shouldn't forget that LW doesn't support any type of color calibration/ matching, be it for print or LUT for film work, so anyone who needs this would still do it in the native host application of the filter.

Also in order for filters to work properly, LW would have to flatten, convert or normalize internal data/ buffers just as if you were writing them to image files anyway. So what's the point?

Mylenium

Qexit
12-29-2004, 05:37 PM
You shouldn't forget that LW doesn't support any type of color calibration/ matching, be it for print or LUT for film work, so anyone who needs this would still do it in the native host application of the filter.
It does you know, LUT is a feature in Worley's G2 plugin. There is no native support in out of the box LW.....but you did say 'doesn't support any type of color calibration/ matching' which is incorrect
:)

faulknermano
12-30-2004, 12:51 AM
Yepp, I'm with Lewis here and I don't think that this is a very useful request. Unless you can have full access to all the parameters of a filter, it is pointless. That's the thing why the old 8bf.p failed - it couldn't display the controls for about 80% of the filters out there and hence was useless most of the time.

"unless you can have full access" is the operative phrase. then by all means, let 8bf.p have access.

...


Also in order for filters to work properly, LW would have to flatten, convert or normalize internal data/ buffers just as if you were writing them to image files anyway. So what's the point?

...

It's really much simpler to have a batch action in Photoshop and do it there.



well, not really, not when you're trying to process it as an animation. it saves time (LOADS of time). while i can run a compositing app (e.g. combustion) in post, the extra step straight from the render, makes it worth enough to include. ADD that to the fact that i can control lighting while getting render-time feedback on what the filter's effect is, instead of saving it and then having to process it either in photoshop or combustion.

for me, those are important things.

Mylenium
12-30-2004, 06:14 AM
"unless you can have full access" is the operative phrase. then by all means, let 8bf.p have access.

That still might be impossible. Even a lot of the standard filters these days use custom interfaces with only minor portions coded to make use of standard features such as requesting the pixel buffer from Photoshop or displaying the sliders.


well, not really, not when you're trying to process it as an animation. it saves time (LOADS of time). while i can run a compositing app (e.g. combustion) in post, the extra step straight from the render, makes it worth enough to include.

That's a very weak argument. These days you can process ten thousands of frames easily on a single machine in no time and the overhead of having another program open is minor. The greatest bottleneck is opening and saving the files again, but that can be remedied using fast RAID drives.


ADD that to the fact that i can control lighting while getting render-time feedback on what the filter's effect is, instead of saving it and then having to process it either in photoshop or combustion.

for me, those are important things.

Okay, that's valid.

Mylenium

Lewis
12-30-2004, 09:39 AM
Hmm i still don't get what advantage that would be :)

Lets look on this way (when that plugin would be active):

Steps would go this way :

Load your Lw scene with animation. Next, lets say you have 500k polygons and you render 720*480 (NTSC) aniamtion of 1000 frames. If this is an IMAGE filter it's done AFTER rendering in Lw - correct ? So what benefit you have ? How you wold TWEAK filter with options (if all options would be present due fact that most filters have it's own HUGHE interface)? You tweak settings and then hit F9 to RENER so that LW apply that on image and you decide is it OK? And if you have just 60 seconds render per frame you will spend atleast 5-10 minutes (5-10 test renders) just for tweaking that filter settings on render at ONE frame. And what if filter needs to be adjusted on several frames - then it could be eternity to do it properly :(.

To me it still looks easier in Pshop or After Effects in post process and you get INSTANT feedback (2-3s econds for heavyer filters) on frame you want any you can keyframe it differently very easy in AE.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against that this tool be included but i sure can't see benefit of it and too many plugis look messy to me :). Also there is much more things what programmers need to do in LW ;).

cheers

P.S. Did anyone actually tryed to install that plugin form LW 5.5/5.6 directory ???

Mylenium
12-30-2004, 12:35 PM
Hmm i still don't get what advantage that would be :)

Lets look on this way (when that plugin would be active):

Steps would go this way :

Load your Lw scene with animation. Next, lets say you have 500k polygons and you render 720*480 (NTSC) aniamtion of 1000 frames. If this is an IMAGE filter it's done AFTER rendering in Lw - correct ? So what benefit you have ? How you wold TWEAK filter with options (if all options would be present due fact that most filters have it's own HUGHE interface)? You tweak settings and then hit F9 to RENER so that LW apply that on image and you decide is it OK? And if you have just 60 seconds render per frame you will spend atleast 5-10 minutes (5-10 test renders) just for tweaking that filter settings on render at ONE frame. And what if filter needs to be adjusted on several frames - then it could be eternity to do it properly :(.


I'm sure these days one would implement it as normal image filter and in addition to this as a pixel filter and the image viewer and VIPER would at some point in the future be able to interactively incorporate them, which would smoothly work with LW-native stuff, but there are simply enough other technical reasons that would make it difficult for foreign app filters to use this architecture.

Mylenium

Karmacop
12-30-2004, 05:18 PM
It's an advantage for people without photoshop/after effects etc ;)

faulknermano
12-30-2004, 10:22 PM
That's a very weak argument. These days you can process ten thousands of frames easily on a single machine in no time and the overhead of having another program open is minor. The greatest bottleneck is opening and saving the files again, but that can be remedied using fast RAID drives.

well.... firstly, i dont think a "hardware" solution is a solution at all to a "software" request. you can not make presumptions about the sort of the system one uses, or for that matter, abot the sort of system you think they ought to be using.

faulknermano
12-30-2004, 10:37 PM
Hmm i still don't get what advantage that would be :)


....
You tweak settings and then hit F9 to RENER so that LW apply that on image and you decide is it OK? And if you have just 60 seconds render per frame you will spend atleast 5-10 minutes (5-10 test renders) just for tweaking that filter settings on render at ONE frame. And what if filter needs to be adjusted on several frames - then it could be eternity to do it properly :(.

To me it still looks easier in Pshop or After Effects in post process and you get INSTANT feedback (2-3s econds for heavyer filters) on frame you want any you can keyframe it differently very easy in AE.


in the original 8bf.p panel you get the same instant feedback. in addition to that, you get the same ability to layer the effects like you would be able to in the more modern versions like pshop 7 / 8 (CS).

my point of getting render-time feedback is akin, to say, applying unreal in the image filter. granted: unreal uses normal data on some parameters, things that 2d filters wont (or wont at the moment). it boils down to that the fact that it indeed, is a filter. but it's a flexible filter because it uses a wider variety of third-party stuff that is already available if you choose to buy supplementary packages (e.g. photoshop, afx). it's like NightVision, Emboss, VidNoise, etc etc. but you're thinking, "that's pathetic. we dont use those effects." well # 1: you might not, but others might. and # 2: if we had a wide variety of post-image effects to choose from, maybe it wouldnt *look* so pathetic.


Don't get me wrong - I'm not against that this tool be included but i sure can't see benefit of it and too many plugis look messy to me :).

oh, it's just a re-instatement of an old plugin. just one ol plug. :D


Also there is much more things what programmers need to do in LW ;).

as yes. of course, i agree. but again, it's just a re-instatement of an old plugin: fix a few interface errors, make it up to spec with versioning of photoshop plugins, and (god forbid) provide some... ahem.. modest documentation with it. :D



P.S. Did anyone actually tryed to install that plugin form LW 5.5/5.6 directory ???

yes. i got the plugin and installed it on my lw8 dir. it works fine. at the forewarning of kevin stubbs, i got some pshop 5 filters for it.

interface is a rather messy (many overlapping). useable though, for any true hard-core lw'er. :D

faulknermano
12-31-2004, 06:22 AM
my point of getting render-time feedback is akin, to say, applying unreal in the image filter. granted: unreal uses normal data on some parameters, things that 2d filters wont (or wont at the moment).

i'm a bit mistaken here, implicitly. after going through the old 5.6 addendum, it seems that 8bf.p can apply the filter into lw's internal buffers. i suppose it's another plus. :D

(it did say in the addendum what mylenium mentioned: some plugins, especially third-party to adobe, do not expose certain info that is save-able. i wonder if there are workarounds for that.)

Lewis
12-31-2004, 09:56 AM
It's an advantage for people without photoshop/after effects etc ;)

Funny and what plugins/filters you would use then if you don't have PS :) ? I'm pretty sure nobody can guarantee that every PS plugin/filter will work in LW so who would actually BUY filters/plugins for PS if he don't have Photoshop installed :)? Isn't that nonsense ?

tischbein3
12-31-2004, 05:12 PM
Funny and what plugins/filters you would use then if you don't have PS :) ? I'm pretty sure nobody can guarantee that every PS plugin/filter will work in LW so who would actually BUY filters/plugins for PS if he don't have Photoshop installed :)? Isn't that nonsense ?


not if you consider that other apps support photoshop plugins. Had become almost a standard (Before adobe started to "sell" the sdk)

Karmacop
12-31-2004, 08:18 PM
Funny and what plugins/filters you would use then if you don't have PS :) ? I'm pretty sure nobody can guarantee that every PS plugin/filter will work in LW so who would actually BUY filters/plugins for PS if he don't have Photoshop installed :)? Isn't that nonsense ?

Quiet you! :p

I had a great point until you had to come in and ruin it with your facts! ;)

Silkrooster
12-31-2004, 10:17 PM
And what about the free PS plugins on the net for those that don't own PS. Perhaps I should expand that to say any image editor that supports PS plugins. Then I could see this to be a valuable addition to LW.
Silk

Mylenium
01-01-2005, 05:13 AM
not if you consider that other apps support photoshop plugins. Had become almost a standard (Before adobe started to "sell" the sdk)

Mmh, yes and no. Many other apps such as Corel or Painter only use the 8bf format as a wrapper for certain functions, but implement them in a non-compliant way for other programs. So just compiling to a 8bf doesn't mean cross application compatibility at all. You cannot even use Adobe's own filters in all their own apps. so it's a "standard" but a pretty useless one.

Mylenium

faulknermano
01-01-2005, 07:18 AM
You cannot even use Adobe's own filters in all their own apps. so it's a "standard" but a pretty useless one.

Mylenium

after effects plugins (*.aep - i think) are better in this respect. we use both after effects and combustion at work and we mingle afx plugs with combustion and for the majority of them, we have no problems making them work. they're great, actually.

Mylenium
01-01-2005, 02:13 PM
Yeah, in a way it is, but that's simply to the fact that more is going on (time, keyframes, multiple mattes, nesting etc.) and the functions of a plugin need to be defined more specifically as to what it is supposed and allowed to do. Also there are some rather strict limitations/ constraints in how to setup things which makes it easier for foreign programs to mimic AE native behaviors whereas in Photoshop only the final output pixel buffer matters whilst on the inside coding hell could exist without the host app even noticing it.

Mylenium

tischbein3
01-02-2005, 12:21 PM
these are all well thought arguments, but whats the real problem ?

simply publishing the old plugin will not eat newteks programmers manpower at all. (Ok maybe 20 minutes to place it on the site).
And if I'm using it once in 500 years, I would be glad that's existing.

On the other side, if they have to rebuild it from scratch, I would certainly rethink my opinion.

Mylenium
01-02-2005, 12:56 PM
these are all well thought arguments, but whats the real problem ?

simply publishing the old plugin will not eat newteks programmers manpower at all. (Ok maybe 20 minutes to place it on the site).
And if I'm using it once in 500 years, I would be glad that's existing.

On the other side, if they have to rebuild it from scratch, I would certainly rethink my opinion.

The problem is that current PS plugins don't work because just as the LW SDK moves on, Adobes SDKs evolved. For most users it would be a bit hard to find older versions of plugins that were compiled for PS 4 or 5. With all that hassle and extra effort it's just not worthwile so unlees they do some work on it it would be wiser to not re-release it officially.

Mylenium

tischbein3
01-02-2005, 01:10 PM
.... it would be wiser to not re-release it officially.


agree....


...so let them release it "inofficially" :D