[CREATE] Status of libora?

[Jon Nordby]

On 24 September 2012 13:09, Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jon Nordby <jononor at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 September 2012 05:19, Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you are interested in continuing to work on libora I'll review and
>>>> integrate the patches you provide, and give you commit access when
>>>> you've completed a couple.
>>>
>>> Cool. I don't know if I'll clone the repo, or maybe simply send some
>>> patches, if ever I have any to send.
>>
>> Either works fine by me, as long as you create a bugreport or send an
>> email when you want it merged (I don't have email subscriptions in
>> gitorious, too spammy). A separate repo is of course a bit easier for
>> bigger amounts of work.
>
> Indeed. I just meant that I don't know if I would have big amount of
> work. Right now, I have only compiled the library, and I will start to
> have a look and play around.
> My main idea was to have a look at tools to process OpenRaster to:
> - maybe improve the support in Gimp.
> - add a support in Blender to import OpenRaster files into the video
> editor (like for instance when Adobe users import a PSD file into
> AfterEffect).
I'd love to see OpenRaster support in Blender! And contributions to
the GIMP support is of course always welcome.

> Instead of doing all in Python, In could make a Python wrapper to
> libora, and use it in both Gimp and Blender (as both accept Python
> plugins).

> But I am still studying the possibilities. If OpenRaster happens to be
> too much of a pain, I may want to work directly on xcf files.
Working with XCF files is not likely to be less pain than OpenRaster ;)

> Another possibility is to not bother about trying to connect these,
> and just have a Gimp plugin generate all my frames as png images from
> my layers. This last solution is actually the easiest to do. That may
> be my way to go.
> Simply as someone who likes good design, I know that OpenRaster is (on
> the principle) the way to go for interoperability.
>
> Basically it will all depend in the end on a compromise between the
> "principles" and the easiness (= not wasting all my time when I
> already have a valid solution).
>
Yeah, sometimes quick and simple does it just fine.

>>> Also is the standards still evolving?
>>> I would personally be interested into an animation extension. I see
>>> there has been a "proposal" of just a few approximative lines. In the
>>> context of our project, I would be happy to discuss it, extend this
>>> and add a support to libora.
>> Yes, some things were agreed on this year, so it is still in
>> development. I don't expect any changes to the base standard at this
>> point, but the things that noone has implemented yet may still change,
>> and additions are of couse possible. Sadly it is not so easy from the
>> spec which aspects has been widely implemented and agreed on and which
>> are still a bit in the air.
>>
>
> In the agreed things/discussion, is there anything about animation?
> Because the "spec" I see is just a few bullet points of random ideas
> thrown around: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/OpenRaster/Draft/Animation
> There is not really any spec yet. Or maybe I am not looking in the
> right place. Is there a real document elsewhere?
> Also from having seen the stuff in Photoshop for animation, which was
> more like an awful hack and sucked, I can say I don't agree with these
> bullet points already.

Noone has implemented the animation ideas as far as I know. I think
most of the things there came from one guy. Please add your
comments/opinions!


-- 
Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com