Propose your solution
Duplicates
[Report a duplicate and merge its votes to this idea]
Comments
|
emu wrote on the 20 Aug 10 at 07:41 |
|
|
| windex:: you can select the camera in Camera view too, by clicking the solid black border. No need for outliner. |
|
ike wrote on the 20 Aug 10 at 10:18 |
|
|
| the point is it's weird to move the camera that way. if you're moving around a space a certain way, why would you move around a space differently and awkwardly in camera view. it takes a long time and as solution 3 pointed out, the transforms aren't necessarily built to work well on the camera. it's so weird to me personally that anyone would prefer to not move around the scene in camera view like they would normally. |
| windex wrote on the 21 Aug 10 at 17:57 |
|
|
@emu Thanks!!! I learned something new : D
Isn't the Blender community awesome? |
|
emu wrote on the 24 Aug 10 at 05:33 |
|
|
ike: I agree it is a bit uncomfortable, but I also don't think moving the camera should be too simple. It's an operator, something that can be undoed and that shouldn't happen by an accident. It changes some data.
Opposed to that, manipulating the 3d view feels absolutely automatic to me, I don't think about it at all. If this basic action would suddenly gain the power to manipulate some data just by switching to camera view, it would seem more awkward to me. |
|
Moolah wrote on the 2 Sep 10 at 04:41 |
|
|
Only one thing I was really bored - G then MMB. If it can be changed (BTW I didn't checked this in prefs) - then all is fine.
It's strange that nobody said that the easiest way to handle camera is to link it to Empty. Camera will be directed to one specified point then.
When I dropped off Modo almost every second thing in Blender was weird to me. But now I see just some little faults and many... many things are much more better than in "major" 3d packages. |
|
ike wrote on the 6 Sep 10 at 07:56 |
|
|
emu:
i like that your solution helps the problem, and i think it is a real problem. Jonathan williamson on the 2010 Blender Training Series has to explain weird ways around the clunky camera controls because of how unnatural they are. Have you ever looked at and analyzed how other packages do camera control. I'm really sick of the overplayed 'oh you're just so USED to the "major" packages'. no. not true actually. don't people get tired of just resorting to that conclusion just to sound like they're really "in" in the blender community without even first thinking and analyzing things. I think snarky attitudes towards outside ideas is just a ball and chain. (i'm not refering to you). Hey i'm in agreement that blender has some better things than in other packages. why else would i be here. i've gotten off my point.
Controlling the camera is just plain weird, and it shouldn't be weird just to add a level of caution for people. I think that's insulting to users. and my slight problem with your solution (it sti |
|
ike wrote on the 6 Sep 10 at 08:06 |
|
|
i wish it would send a warning message about rejecting the legth of a comment rather than cutting it off haha. oh well
Pt2.
Controlling the camera is just plain weird, and it shouldn't be weird, just to add a level of caution for people. I think that's insulting to users. and my slight problem with your solution (it still goes a long way to help i think truly) is that it still has to be confine only to camera mode, otherwise it would screw up adjusting the camera in regular mode. and then.. if it was confined to only camera mode, why not just make the controls natural to the user. I see your point about the importance of camera adjustments (this is why i made this), but making the controls weird just to add an extra level of caution does not technically make it harder to screw up data. |
|
ike wrote on the 6 Sep 10 at 08:16 |
|
|
Pt.3
You can tell i'm super passionate about this. Camera placement is one fo the most important things to me in my art. In another program i have to use for one feature (object centric, node influenced toon lines), the camera is a separate type of object that can be bookmarked, and previous views(nonbookmarked) can be cycled through easily. Now blender isn't there, but at least the data can be cycled by undo and redo which is cool (problem being that other actions are int he same undo list). I think making the controls natural helps everyone.
|
|
ike wrote on the 6 Sep 10 at 08:16 |
|
|
pt 4
Everyone at my institution i've showed blender to: 2d, 3d, stop motion animators; film and photography students - all find it painfully difficult and crazy to understand how the camera works and why.
I agree some want wrongly blender to be another proram, but many of those people's critics are so caught up with blender vs another package to analyze the important blender vs logical/fun/intuitive/artist-friendly/streamlined program. Animation being fun can't be underestimated. I just hate when things don't have to be so frustrating. |
|
emu wrote on the 9 Sep 10 at 12:15 |
|
|
After all I quite agree with your solution, but still I am not exactly sure how you imagine it. There is a difference between persp view and camera: view has a center. When you orbit, you rotate around it. If you want to make moving camera feel exactly the same, it would *need* such a center. You just do not mention this.
This is not a real problem. Moreover, it could be of use even for moving the camera in classical - outside - view. Camera object could consist of two parts that could be translated separately; rotating one would only translate the other, scaling would push the other away.
It might be even nice if the center object could set the depth of field distance.
Please, include this topic in your solution. I would create a new one, but there are quite a lot of them already, some already being redundant. |
|
ike wrote on the 10 Sep 10 at 09:21 |
|
|
yeah i agree i need to delete the first solution i posted as it was too radical for now and now the other one sounds redundant. I think the num+ctrl+0 fix would go a long long way and be really easy for everyone (personally i rather have the controls match in camera mode but i'd be super happy either way).
later tonight i'll try to figure out a way to word what your were saying in my last solution. If you have specific wording you'd like me to put let me know. |
Post your comment
|
