PDA

View Full Version : Do You remember: Photoshop filters in LW ?



Emmanuel
12-27-2005, 08:54 AM
Hi,

I was in bed last night and suddenly it struck me like a lightning:
wasn't in earlier versions of LW (5.x) it possible to use Photoshop filters
as post effects during rendering !?
And if so, what happened to that feature ?

Emmanuel
12-27-2005, 10:07 AM
Thanks, but that wasn't my question ;)

Mylenium
12-27-2005, 11:25 AM
Hi,

I was in bed last night and suddenly it struck me like a lightning:
wasn't in earlier versions of LW (5.x) it possible to use Photoshop filters
as post effects during rendering !?
And if so, what happened to that feature ?

Haven't we discussed this not so long ago and weren't you heavily involved into this discussion? The main problem simply is that newer filters are not compatible with the old API and many of them use custom controls that cannot be replicated using simple sliders. ****, most of the filters aren't even exchangeable across Adobe apps these days. It would be a major task to update the old code of 8bf.p or start a new one from scratch.

Mylenium

Emmanuel
12-27-2005, 11:56 AM
Well, Mylenium,

1)There was a thread where YOU were heavily involved, not a single post of ME
2)It dates back to 12/29/2004, so not really recently :/

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31853&highlight=8bf.p

Qexit
12-27-2005, 12:42 PM
Hi,

I was in bed last night and suddenly it struck me like a lightning:
wasn't in earlier versions of LW (5.x) it possible to use Photoshop filters
as post effects during rendering !?
And if so, what happened to that feature ?
Put simply, it never got updated and was dropped from the plugin list when LW6 came out. I think it even disappeared from the Legacy Plugins directory. Mylenium was correct in his summing up of events. The 8bf.p plugin did allow some Photoshop plugins to work inside LW as post effects but they needed to be PS 5.X or below to work at all. PS 6.X and above changed format and were not compatible. I do still have the plugin in my Legacy Folder and also have a copy of PhotoShop 5.5 so I can use filters from there...when I think about it. I imagine there was too much work involved in keeping the plugin upto date with the constant changes in PS and there might also have been a licensing issue somewhere.

Mylenium
12-27-2005, 01:26 PM
Well, Mylenium,

1)There was a thread where YOU were heavily involved, not a single post of ME
2)It dates back to 12/29/2004, so not really recently :/

http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31853&highlight=8bf.p

Gosh, time flies! Sorry, if my memory betrayed me and I attributed something to you that you weren't even part of ;o).

Mylenium

ercaxus
12-27-2005, 07:27 PM
I believe (since it's open source) it should be easy to use Gimp filters in any software, all we need is someone to write a tiny plugin. :D

Mylenium
12-28-2005, 12:58 AM
I believe (since it's open source) it should be easy to use Gimp filters in any software, all we need is someone to write a tiny plugin. :D

I don't know. Quite frankly if I had the abilities to do serious programming, I would not focus on making a plugin that uses code from another program even if it's open source. You are forcing people to limit themselves to something that they might not want. Also choice would be limited and - let's face it - many really cool effects/ filters are commercial. So Instead I'd focus on creating something like a host for OpenFX filters of which many are available in various flavors. You could even integrate animation via the graph editor. Of course I can't deny (and I know it kinda contradicts my own statement) that I would love to see an AEX host in LW (After Effects plugins). Would make some things so much easier.

Mylenium

Sensei
12-31-2005, 12:49 AM
We were making such plug-in in march-april 2003, called ImageFilterFactory.. It was working for both processing images in Image Editor (so any textures, or background could be processed, making f.e. grey texture from color one or other effects was child easy, no need to run Photoshop and alter images on disc) and as post processing rendered frames...

Here are screen-shots.. It's even working in LightWave v8.5.. ;) It was written for v6.5, if I recall correctly..

RedBull
12-31-2005, 01:40 AM
What i think would be a better idea than the 5.x filters
would be a HubLink to Photoshop (like Aura/Mirage) that would update
the image in the ImageEditor and Photoshop, so applying a filter to an image
would show up instantly in Layout, as would renders.

Mylenium
12-31-2005, 02:29 AM
What i think would be a better idea than the 5.x filters
would be a HubLink to Photoshop (like Aura/Mirage) that would update
the image in the ImageEditor and Photoshop, so applying a filter to an image
would show up instantly in Layout, as would renders.

Yepp, that would be great, but then again the question becomes: Where do you stop? As a mo-graph/ tech-viz oriented guy I also do a lot of stuff in After Effects and would love to see some kind of connection just as well (for matching things or animated textures). Considering that other users use other apps and might want something similar, it opens up a whole can of worms. Perhaps the most feasible solution would be to have some auto-reload function for images. LW would then check every 5 seconds or so if the image has changed and reload if necessary.

Mylenium

ercaxus
12-31-2005, 02:38 AM
Yepp, that would be great, but then again the question becomes: Where do you stop? ....
There's no need for stoppping. I am pretty sure a lot of different people would love to have a lot of different things, and that's just normal.

Sensei
12-31-2005, 03:32 AM
LW would then check every 5 seconds or so if the image has changed and reload if necessary.

With current LW SDK you cannot implement this feature using other method that above.. There is no such thing as procedural image in LightWave that has evaluated each pixel in real-time in the time it's displayed, unfortunately.. Procedural image would also help creating true infiniMap plug-in, that need not to be shader..

Qexit
12-31-2005, 03:47 AM
What i think would be a better idea than the 5.x filters
would be a HubLink to Photoshop (like Aura/Mirage) that would update
the image in the ImageEditor and Photoshop, so applying a filter to an image
would show up instantly in Layout, as would renders.Don't forget that the original LW plugin applied the PS filter as a post effect on the final rendered image/image sequence. It did not apply PS effects to individual images in the Image Editor which would be then available for use in renders. This allowed for a variety of interesting variations in animated rendered output. Just changing/updating images for use in renders is rather limited/limiting.

Mylenium
12-31-2005, 06:24 AM
With current LW SDK you cannot implement this feature using other method that above.. There is no such thing as procedural image in LightWave that has evaluated each pixel in real-time in the time it's displayed, unfortunately.. Procedural image would also help creating true infiniMap plug-in, that need not to be shader..

That's not too nice then, eh? I believe it's the same problem as with rendering large textures at all - LW holds them in memory and never cares any more about them. Maybe it's about time they changed it. Maya and Cinema4D will both reload textures at render time latest which makes working halfway interactively possible.

Mylenium

Emmanuel
12-31-2005, 10:10 AM
I second the idea of having GIMP filter support as a start.
GIMP is free and so NT would show they are nice playing with others.

habaņero
01-02-2006, 10:58 AM
I am not sure if I understand the specific need this adressses, besides a little convenience. With PS I open the frame record all changes, levels etc I do to a PS action, go file -> automate -> create droplet and put that to the folder with the out put. Then just drop them in the droplet. No preview of the effects in LW, no option of putting changes to PS layers etc. And no risk of PS crashing the render/swamping memory or anything like that. Better tools in the image editor though is always welcome, it is an inconvenience to toss images back and forth between LW and PS for small changes since PS doesn't understand about content folders ...

Panikos
01-02-2006, 12:11 PM
These effects (Photoshop/Gimp) can be applied externally with fast feedback and automation. Such needs fall into the compositing area.

Its not only my opinion, but is something very obvious : There are areas where LW is aged and these areas need immediate attention.

If you request such secondary priority features, Newtek will find the excuse to occupy with them and let the other urgent areas untouched until LW 11.0
because someone requested Gimp/Photoshop Filters.

If you are desparate with Gimp/Photoshop Filters, you have Gimp for free and a registered Photoshop.
If someone is desparate with other Newtek weaknesses, there is no other solution than wait with patience for something that may never come.

I got sick of waiting
:grumpy:

Mylenium
01-02-2006, 12:17 PM
I am not sure if I understand the specific need this adressses, besides a little convenience. With PS I open the frame record all changes, levels etc I do to a PS action, go file -> automate -> create droplet and put that to the folder with the out put. Then just drop them in the droplet. No preview of the effects in LW, no option of putting changes to PS layers etc. And no risk of PS crashing the render/swamping memory or anything like that. Better tools in the image editor though is always welcome, it is an inconvenience to toss images back and forth between LW and PS for small changes since PS doesn't understand about content folders ...

That's a rather blind-eyed view. What about applying effects selectively without the need to render numerous extra layers/ passes just to separate objects? What with fields? What with animating filter parameters over time with envelopes for images applied as textures without having to create an external image sequence? What about replacing LW's lensflares with Knoll Light Factory and using real Z-depth and coverage info to drive them? what with DOF post effects? There are many uses I can think of. Sure, all these things can be achieved using compositing techniques, but it would be so much more efficient if one could create, adjust and test those effects in the context of the entire scene. And like I said: It could avoid having to tackle even more image sequences in compositing/ editing.

Mylenium

Qexit
01-02-2006, 12:53 PM
OK, just so you all know what you are missing I had a quick play around with the original filter and a couple of PS5.5 filters. The attached image shows how it works. It is/was quite handy as it allowed you to tweak settings in the LW render to see how they would look after applying the PS filters. The original plugin still works in LW8.5 :)

ercaxus
01-02-2006, 01:52 PM
I don't think anything's wrong with :lwicon: having such capabilities, but If ,as Panikos mentioned, it's going to delay other things that were supposed to be done by now, I agree it can wait.
But I really would love to see these kind of features in LW again.

How about someone writing a plugin to connect gimp and LW through the evil HUB. :) I would but I don't have enough lifetimes for this :D

RedBull
01-03-2006, 12:36 PM
These effects (Photoshop/Gimp) can be applied externally with fast feedback and automation. Such needs fall into the compositing area.

Its not only my opinion, but is something very obvious : There are areas where LW is aged and these areas need immediate attention.

If you request such secondary priority features, Newtek will find the excuse to occupy with them and let the other urgent areas untouched until LW 11.0
because someone requested Gimp/Photoshop Filters.

If you are desparate with Gimp/Photoshop Filters, you have Gimp for free and a registered Photoshop.
If someone is desparate with other Newtek weaknesses, there is no other solution than wait with patience for something that may never come.

I got sick of waiting
:grumpy:

Some of us don't care about Radiosity and Reflection being seperate....
So everybody has preferences and priorities for what they want Panikos.

It's kind of stupid to suggest other should not request features, because
it may interfere with a feature request that you have made..

jeremyhardin
01-03-2006, 12:47 PM
haha. RedBull, he didn't say that specifically (though he may have been referring to it. hehe.)

he has a point though. every version of LW implements something that may have been halfway mentioned somewhere and ignores what masses of users are begging for.

to be fair though, ngons and catmul-clark sub-d's used to be a perfect example of this. then 9 added them :D so trends could be changing. but that's not to say Panikos's worries are not valid.

Panikos
01-03-2006, 03:19 PM
Redbull, thank you for your compliments.
I am sorry for your myopia.

ThriJ
01-04-2006, 09:00 PM
I agree that keeping focused on what is most important and what is not is critical in development, however I do have to say this:

Ok, I have always wanted to edit renders with filters in LightWave, and I always will. I like the Idea of making an image in LightWave with no post work in another program. I like working on a scene and knowing the look and feel of the render is the final vision. It is just easer for me to see it instead of keeping at the back of my mind the changes and settings that will affect the image later. But, that is me. I know the issues at hand, but for someone like me something like that would be very helpful.

faulknermano
01-04-2006, 11:01 PM
Ok, I have always wanted to edit renders with filters in LightWave, and I always will. I like the Idea of making an image in LightWave with no post work in another program. I like working on a scene and knowing the look and feel of the render is the final vision. It is just easer for me to see it instead of keeping at the back of my mind the changes and settings that will affect the image later. But, that is me. I know the issues at hand, but for someone like me something like that would be very helpful.

:agree: even if the final post effect is to be done somewhere else (or worse, it cant be done at all, for example if you're going to comp it using a non-adobe app) tweaking your surfaces and lighting is important at this step. because the image filter is going to change the way a certain light or surface is going to come out. you'd want to keep tabs on how changes affect the image filter. it would be more impractical to keep on saving every rendered image, put it in photoshop and apply the filter for each change.

i voted for this. however, and i think it's worth the development effort. i specially think if AE plugins, or other popular formats, can be supported it would be a big plus. imagine: the AE plugin shine: maybe that be used to simulate fast volumetric effects right inside LW.

faulknermano
01-04-2006, 11:14 PM
Its not only my opinion, but is something very obvious : There are areas where LW is aged and these areas need immediate attention.



i use LW mostly for texture and rendering. because of that my votes go to those that make the final image, be it photorealistic, NPR, or somewhere in between, the best it can be. i dont use LW for animation anymore and i'm not sure, given the competition (motionbuilder, messiah, maya, xsi, etc) LW is going to give me more than any of them. but i'd like to be pleasantly surprised.

at any rate, there are thing in LW that are "aged". or just falling away into pieces and just dying.

Panikos
01-05-2006, 12:35 AM
I animate in messiah and render in FPrime until Newtek realizes that is following with a lag of 5 years comparing to the competition.
5 years lag in technology means 50.

I'd like to have such post-processing effects too, they are cool within LW.
Its a matter of priorities.
But dont let decorative bells and whistles expand the lag.
As I already wrote, Gimp runs as a standalone.