Disable scenes using themselves as sequence strips 2.8 Proposal #52586
Labels
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
10 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: blender/blender#52586
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
While supported on a basic level, this ends up causing annoying problems especially relating to updating animated state and frame ranges.
Examples of this are: #52583 #50139 #44291 #42235 #38132 #33298 #30663... seems this is common annoyance,
This task is to see if its acceptable to remove this functionality in 2.8 to save headaches, users and devs wasting time on such useless and annoying behavior.
The main down-side is existing blend files that use this wont render files that contain scene strips using themselves.
Listing some options of how to handle this:
Alternatives? or any preference for how to handle?
Changed status to: 'Open'
Added subscribers: @ideasman42, @mont29, @Sergey, @dfelinto
+1 I think this is reasonable. I've ran into this problem myself and from the user point of view it's mind-boggling.
Agree this should not be allowed, that kind of recursion is just calling for issues, and brings pretty much nothing to users (aside from not having to add another empty scene… :P ).
Added some options on how we might handle to the main task.
I’d go for “Warning on load or render, the scenes-in-scenes are not rendered (return pink pixels or so).”
Though maybe a do_version-ish solution is also possible. It should not be a big issue to make a 'linked objects' copy of orig scene (mere id_copy() in fact), remap orig scene strips to new copy, and delete content (objects etc.) in orig scene?
Am worried that do-versions will end up being a heavy operation.
Steps could be:
scene->ed
to this scene.Issues I see with do-versions:
Since the conversion process isn't likely to be clean and we can't ensure it goes smoothly, think it may be better to have a utility to automate the update, its also a bit weak but means users wont open files to find broken do-versions which they can't recover from.
Added subscriber: @mardy
I support this change; in fact, I never use the scene itself in the VSE, because somehow I conceptually found it wrong (kind of self-recursion :-) ). I think we should try not to break existing files, so my vote goes for:
Added subscriber: @tintwotin
Oh, so integrating the sequencer with the 3D Viewport like this, will no more be possible? Previz Camera Tools
How about allowing the Sequencer run in a "local" scene different from the "global" scene on the same screen? That way the global scene(screen setting) could be switched as the scenes changes in the sequencer(by a script), but not the contents of the sequencer(area setting). That way the annoying problem of changing the scene also changing the timeline contents of the sequencer could be avoided.
Added subscriber: @ChristopherAnderssarian
Added subscriber: @spockTheGray-4
Added subscriber: @brecht
Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'
This was implemented in 2.8.
Added subscriber: @0o00o0oo
This seems to be a short-term, and patchy fix to Blender not being able to handle an ideal workflow. I really hope the idea of a "global" sequencer is being looked at by the Blender Foundation.
This would be the direction to make doing quick previs/animatics a dream in Blender, which, outside of this one lacking feature, Blender is so suited for, especially now with the new render engine and Grease Pencil developments in 2.8.
Added subscriber: @zargul
Is there still a way to render the scene from it's own sequencer at all? Such as having the camera for the scene underly all sequencer material?
Being global has the down-side of not supporting multiple video edits per blend file - you couldn't for example, copy the scene, to try some alternate edits.
We could make the video editor data separate from scenes though (there own data-block for example).
No, you need a separate scene.
I think that would solve many problems and lead to making the Sequencer a much more versatile and well integrated tool, however stuff like the decrease in the playback rate of scene strips(2.79>2.80) will have to be addressed too.
Not sure about this, it's not that hard to use a separate scene for video editing, more a minor annoyance you might hit when starting out.
Has this regression been reported?
Way back when Motion Builder was Filmbox(more than 20 years ago) is was possible to edit camera mise-en-scenes in a timeline realtime(of the current scene). Since then pretty much all 3D packages and 3D game engines have this feature added, including Unity and Unreal, but still not Blender. With gpencil and the speed of EEVEE, realtime virtual filmmaking(and previz), should be within reach in Blender, but being able to seamless edit cameras(in 3d view) integrated with the sequencer, is a most essential step in that direction. However, without the ability to use cameras of the current scene in the sequencer, this is not possible.
I've been spamming with this POC from 2.79, but here it is again, showcasing 3D View integrated(previewing) the edits in the sequencer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG52ytTa_JU It's a delightful workflow. However, this hack has the limitation that moving the scene strips in time, will not change the entry point in the 3d scene.
With the scenes separated from the sequences, that would not only solve the scene addressing the same scene problems, but also allow the sequencer to switch between scenes without switching the contents of the sequencer and much more. Some additional words on the topic: https://blender.community/c/rightclickselect/kWbbbc/
Yes, I think that regression was reported, but I can't remember the outcome. Oh, here it is: https://developer.blender.org/T62517
From the user perspective, with the current implementation, I'd like to note 2 things.
One thing I'm realizing is that I don't understand the need to tie a video editor to a scene. What purpose does this serve? (e.g. Why should the user have to create a new scene to create another edit?)
The video editor is fundamentally different from every other editor. Whereas all other editors are used in service of building the current scene, VSE isn't; It's the other way around. I'd like to suggest, ultimately, that it becomes a globally launchable editor (A toggling button that changes VSE <> Scene).
A "global" VSE I know is a bit different from the way pretty much everything is done in Blender, but I think it makes sense. I like your idea of the VSE having separate data. I'm understanding you to mean like being able to globally create new scenes, the user will be able to easily create new editor data in VSE with the push of a "+" button. That sounds fantastic and logical.
A temporary solution suggestion: Let the user know they need to create a new scene to add the current scene to a strip. Maybe in the form of grayed out "Scene". Mouse-over will have a tool tip explaining what's going on.
Except the Text Editor. The contents of the Sequencer should be independent of the Scene selection like the Text Editor's contents is.
Hey, everybody! For those of you who need a WORKAROUND SO AS TO KEEP VIDEO AND SEQUENCER AUDIO IN SYNC WHEN ANIMATING, the Lord gave me a cool idea. It's really simple: just create a shallow copy of the scene and name it Stage, then add that to the sequencer of the true scene to use for video. Changes to animations will be updated. About the only thing to port manually would be the scene length, but that shouldn't be changing very often, so...