Hi Heiko I do not have a very detailed feedback to give for now, as I only played with it a little (maybe latter) ;-) Still, I wanted to say that I am very impressed, as I obtained great results very easily. This is awesome! Thanks a lot! rawfiner
Le sam. 10 nov. 2018 à 20:07, Heiko Bauke <heiko.ba...@mail.de> a écrit : > Hi Björn, > > many thanks for your feedback. > > Am 10.11.18 um 11:24 schrieb Björn Sozumschein: > > I also believe that a proper explanation would prevent confusion > > regarding the inversion behavior. > > However, I have concerns with respect to the usability, based on my > > initial experience: > > In most cases, I use the masks to apply a module either to my subject or > > to the background individually. > > Let's assume, for instance, that there's a portrait shoot where I like > > to apply a tone curve to the subject and I also want to use color > > correction on the background. > > In order to achieve this, I usually create a mask for the subject first, > > because it is easier and more reliable to create a mask for the subject > > than for the background. > > This is due to the fact that, when the colored mask overlay is > > activated, it seems just easier for human vision to classify whether the > > subject is covered by the mask than if a mask of the background does not > > cover parts of the subject. > > At this step, I can draw a coarse mask and then use feathering to obtain > > a great result and apply the tone curve. > > Then, however, in order to perform color correction of the background, I > > like to reuse the mask for the subject, apply the same contrast and > > brightness parameters and simply invert it in order to obtain a mask for > > the background that is complementary to the subject mask. > > This is not possible with the current implementation, as brightness and > > contrast have to be adjusted. > > > > So, aside from the better conformity with the user's intuitive > > understanding, maybe inverting the mask at the end of the pipeline would > > benefit usability. > > I completely agree. > > > There is a second point I noticed: > > Especially when using the mask with hair, after proper adjustment of > > brightness and saturation in order to match the edges well, the mask is > > rather sharp and thus, for most modules, the edges of small structures > > as well as soft edges do not look good. > > I would like to apply a gaussian blur to the mask after feathering. > > Also, I am not sure whether the brightness and contrast provide a real > > benefit for the gaussian blur. > > Hence, I wonder whether it could be useful to not have either gaussian > > blur or feathering, but simply have the feathering with its options > > first, followed by a slider for gaussian blur? > > There are many possible options how to integrate the new feathering > algorithm into the exciting mask refinement facilities. This is the > reason why I am locking for feedback. Giving the option to apply both a > Gaussian filter and a guided filter to the mask is just one possible > direction to go. With this option, however, the question of order > appears. Which filter comes first, the Gaussian or the guided filter. > Furthermore, more options and more flexibility require more UI elements > and add more complexity. We have to find the right balance. > > In addition to the existing integration of the guided filter one might > give the user the possibility to adjust the following parameters: > > * Choose which image is used as a guide to feather the mask, the > module's input or the module's output (before blending). Currently it's > always the input. In most cases, the feathering result is not > significantly affected by this choice. It might be relevant, however, > for blurring or sharpening modules. > > * Allow to apply both, a Gaussian filter plus a guided filer. Possibly > even a Gaussian filter before and after the guided filter with different > parameters. > > * One might give the user the ability to determine when the mask > tone-curve is applied, before or after feathering, before or after > Gaussian blur etc. One might even allow to apply several tone-curves at > different stages. > > * One might add further parameters to adjust the mask tone-curve, e.g., > white and black points. > > I definitely do not want to go into the direction of implementing all > these options. I just want so sketch the rich possibilities. I think > we have to find a minimalistic solution that keeps complexity low but > allows flexible mask adjustments. > > Currently I think the following approach is reasonable: > > * There are to sliders in the UI, one for a Gaussian blur radius, one > for the guided filter radius. > > * The toggle box tho choose the filter is removed. > > * A new toggle box is added to choose the guide (module input or > output). This would be consistent with the fact that for parametric > masks we have two sliders for each channel. > > * Both filters (Gaussian and guided filter) are applied if the > respective radius slider is non-zero. > > * Guided filter comes always first, Gaussian afterwards. > > * The mask tone-curve is applied next. > > * Mask inversion comes at the end if activated. > > I which to get the integration of the mask feathering "right" when it > appears the first time in an official darktable release. But this > requires testing in real-world work flows. > > Suggestions and feedback are highly welcome. > > > Heiko > > > -- > -- Number Crunch Blog @ https://www.numbercrunch.de > -- Cluster Computing @ https://www.clustercomputing.de > -- Social Networking @ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Heiko_Bauke > ___________________________________________________________________________ > darktable developer mailing list > to unsubscribe send a mail to > darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > > ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
