Proposal for composition rendering

[yahvuu]

hi all,

here's a (totally unbiased ;-) summary from the previous "composition rendering"
thread, intended as a discussion base:


1. Rendering happens on demand:
   a) when a composition gets displayed on screen (of course)
   b) on export. Here usually the full resolution gets rendered.

   => no rendering happens on saving. Only the necessary data gets written.
      Exceptions can be defined according to 3.)


2. A persistent disk cache of configurable size eliminates expensive re-calculations.
   (a cross-session cache is feasible with reasonable effort?!?)

   Use case: Exporting an expensive composition for a second time should
             not cause re-rendering, unless the disk cache got overwritten
             in the meantime.


3. "Render Hint" operations can be inserted anywhere in a composition.
   These operations have only one option: "render full resolution when saving".

   This way, the user can mark intermediate results from a composition for
   getting cached inside the saved composition file. These Render Hints have
   no effect during editing time.


   Use case: Adding a "Render Hint" operation on top of the composition makes shure
             that a bitmap of the fully rendered composition gets included on saving.

   Use case: A Render Hint after an expensive operation (e.g. denoise) protects
             the invested CPU time once the composition has been saved.



greetings,
peter
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[peter sikking]

(peter) yahvuu wrote:

> hi all,
>
> here's a (totally unbiased ;-) summary from the previous  
> "composition rendering"
> thread, intended as a discussion base:


I must say that I have been watching this discussion with
increasing amazement.

if you just start with some unbreakable UI principles like:

when users save their file everything is stored on the disk; when
exporting a png, it is there at the end of the progress feedback;
when an operation is made on a composition then it is done and
users can see the result to take their next creative decision;
when a file is huge then users' expectation of how long things
take naturally scale accordingly.

then that is what users know and need to know and that is how
it works as far they are concerned. the rest is technical detail
and for actually contributing developers to figure out.

I have been pointing out ages ago that the screens users work on
have only 1 or 2 or 3 million physical pixels and that is all
that needs calculating asap, the rest can catch up in seconds.
has an impact on how effortless zooming is, however...

     --ps

         founder + principal interaction architect
             man + machine interface works

         http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture



_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[yahvuu]

hi,

peter sikking schrieb:
> [..] the rest is technical detail
> and for actually contributing developers to figure out.

Of course, non-devs thinking about technical issues are at
high risk of generating bogus discussion. On the other hand,
the project has traditionally been open to thoughts from the
outside.


> if you just start with some unbreakable UI principles like:
>
> when users save their file everything is stored on the disk; when

the question, what 'everything' consists of was my very starting point.

> exporting a png, it is there at the end of the progress feedback;
> when an operation is made on a composition then it is done and
> users can see the result to take their next creative decision;
> when a file is huge then users' expectation of how long things
> take naturally scale accordingly.
>
> then that is what users know and need to know and that is how
> it works as far they are concerned. the rest is technical detail
> and for actually contributing developers to figure out.
>
> I have been pointing out ages ago that the screens users work on
> have only 1 or 2 or 3 million physical pixels and that is all
> that needs calculating asap, the rest can catch up in seconds.
> has an impact on how effortless zooming is, however...

OK, so there will be no user control for fine-tuning of saving/rendering.
The cases, where the hard-coded strategy becomes inconvenient are
considered corner cases not covered by the project vision.

Please correct me if i got it wrong.


greetings,
peter

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer