<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org">boud@valdyas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thursday 03 September 2009, Sven Langkamp wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Boudewijn Rempt <<a href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org">boud@valdyas.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Thursday 03 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:<br>
> > > We can easily change this behavior - a thumbnail of ANY layer will show<br>
> ><br>
> > the<br>
> ><br>
> > > resulting projection with all the masks applied. This won't be quite<br>
> > > logical, but there is no barrier in implementation.<br>
> ><br>
> > Actually, that's the way I wanted it all the time, just like with group<br>
> > layers: a thumbnail shows the rendered projection of a layer<br>
><br>
> This doesn't make sense for me. The thumbnail would change even if the<br>
> content of the layer doesn't change,<br>
> It might also confuse users coming from the other editors.<br>
<br>
</div>But the masks are part of the content of a layer, just like the layers in a<br>
group are part of the group layer -- so it makes sense to use the rendered<br>
projection in the thumbnail for a layer.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> What's wrong with adjustment layer + group layer? Ok it wastes some space,<br>
> but it's not like we are really saving space in the layerbox anyway.<br>
<br>
</div>I must be missing something here?<br></blockquote><div><br> This (show in the image on the right side):<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
>Example: <br>> <a href="http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5144/adjustmentlayer2.png" target="_blank">http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5144/adjustmentlayer2.png</a><br><br>> With filter mask it starts with the paint layer, jumps to the
lowest child<br>> of the layer and goes upwards while compositing (With
explicit masks<br>> would even be one level deeper)What's also weird is
that the preview <br>> image of the finished layer would be shown in the
first child of the source layer (last filter mask).<br><br>I don't like the second way as it takes tooooo much space on your workplace.<br><br>Idea! What if we'll introduce a tree with the root in the bottom and branches at the top? =)<br>
<br>Like this:<br><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">--o Layer3</span><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">--o Layer2</span><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"></span><br>
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> + Second mask</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> |</span><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> + First mask</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> |</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">--+ Layer</span>1<br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">--o Layer0</span><br><br>What do you think?<br></blockquote>
</div><br>