Template talk:Compositing Software

Reorganization

I just made some edits to this template. It's probably worth explaining the logic. It had been divided into Open Source, Closed Source, and Discontinued Software. Under Open Source there was Blender, which is mainly a 3D application rather than a compositing package. While it does have a "composite node" mode, it's not particularly full featured or widely used by anything but simple comping of Blender's own 3D renders (though other uses are possible.) The other entries under Open Source are both video editing software rather than compositing packages. Again, there is some compositing functionality from having something in one track appear on top of another. But the main focus of these apps is editing and not compositing. Since Final Cut and Premiere aren't included in the Proprietary section of the list and it would be silly to include every single editing application, it doesn't make a lot of sense to include Cinelerra or Openshot. Which means that nothing listed under Open Source belongs here, and it needs a bit of a rethink on how it is organised. I've basically gone with "current," "discontinued," and "other." Most of the current section used to be under closed-source. 3DS Max, Softimage, and Houdini all fall under the same logic as Blender. None of them is compositing software, though they have some compositing featured. Softimage has also been discontinued. So has Toxik, at least sort of. Maya doesn't even rise to the level of Max as far as having compositing features built in, but when Toxik was killed off as a strandalone product it was rebranded as Maya Composite and rolled into the Maya suite. So, while Maya itself isn't a compositor, Maya Composite is, but Toxik no longer is, despite the fact that it is basically the same thing as Maya Composite. Comp Time and Saber were never available outside of ILM, so I'm not sure exactly how to classify their availability status. Silhouette is a roto app, rather than compositing software. The relationship is close enough that it has certainly earned its place in the other category.

So, the list is better now, but not perfect. Some of the "other" category stuff really doesn't belong, but I didn't want to completely remove all of the open source apps for fear of starting an argument. It may be appropriate to include some other open source apps like Natron, Ramen, or Tuttle and related stuff which are specifically compositing related. Though, none of that is especially mature, so I am not sure if it really meets notability guidelines. It would also be good if the Digital Compositing page's list of software were in sync with this infobox template. If Silhoette stays, it probably also makes sense to add some other peripheral apps like Mocha and some tracking software. In any event, this seems like a good start. Hopefully somebody cares enough to do some of the remaining work. 23.240.7.36 (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

I am afraid re-purposing a template in this magnitude without advance discussion is inappropriate. Furthermore, your scheme isn't without problem. Specifically:

1. "Current" is a word that dates rapidly and loses sense; not allowed in Manual of Style.
2. You seem to have problem with recognizing some apps (e.g. Cinelerra or Openshot) as compositing apps. Okay, but I don't see a rationale behind disbanding the "Open-source"/"Closed-source" model yet.
3. Blender, 3ds Max and Maya have scene compositing and material compositing features. So, yes, they are compositing apps.
4. "Other software with compositing features" is vague. It does not explain why its content is not part of the main template body and does not give the ground for discrimination that you have in mind.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thnaks for your input. Since there wasn't anything on the talk page when I started, I wasn't sure if anybody was even going to read my rationale. I'm sorry you feel I did too much, but I still feel that the current version is wildly inaccurate.

1+2 Fair point on current, though the existing version also uses discontinued as a category which strongly implies that software not in the discontinued category is still current. Given that none of the listed open source compositors are compositing applications, how would you suggest it be organised?

3 Respectfully, I can't really agree. Blender, Max, and Maya are all primarily 3D applications. If every single bit of software that puts one pixel over another is to be included in this template, then it would include millions of programs and be completely useless. I mean, I've even discussed the issue of how limited Blenders compositing features are with Ton Roosendal himself at SIGGRAPH a few years ago, and he basically said it was primarily a 3D app. If Maya were a compositing app, they wouldn't bundle a rebranded Toxik with it when you buy it. Autodesk advertises Max as "3D modeling, animation, and rendering software" to quote from their website.

4 I agree that it is vague, but I felt that including some of the apps that had been on the list such as Blender might avoid someone instantly reverting the change if it removed an app that they were fond of. Perhaps I was being optimistic, but it was intended as a nod toward the idea of stability which would inspire discussion about whether to remove things like Blender and Houdini entirely, or put them in a special category of 3D applications with limited compositing toolsets.

23.240.7.36 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again.

Let's address #3 first, because it seems we might need to call in an RFC for it. (What we do about it impacts what we do about #2 and #4.) What criteria do you purpose for apps to meet for being included in this template?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)