On Thursday 03 September 2009, Sven Langkamp wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 September 2009, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:
> > > We can easily change this behavior - a thumbnail of ANY layer will show
> >
> > the
> >
> > > resulting projection with all the masks applied. This won't be quite
> > > logical, but there is no barrier in implementation.
> >
> > Actually, that's the way I wanted it all the time, just like with group
> > layers: a thumbnail shows the rendered projection of a layer
>
> This doesn't make sense for me. The thumbnail would change even if the
> content of the layer doesn't change,
> It might also confuse users coming from the other editors.

But the masks are part of the content of a layer, just like the layers in a
group are part of the group layer -- so it makes sense to use the rendered
projection in the thumbnail for a layer.

> What's wrong with adjustment layer + group layer? Ok it wastes some space,
> but it's not like we are really saving space in the layerbox anyway.

I must be missing something here?

>Example:
> http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5144/adjustmentlayer2.png

> With filter mask it starts with the paint layer, jumps to the lowest child
> of the layer and goes upwards while compositing (With explicit masks
> would even be one level deeper)What's also weird is that the preview
> image of the finished layer would be shown in the first child of the source layer (last filter mask).

I don't like the second way as it takes tooooo much space on your workplace.

Idea! What if we'll introduce a tree with the root in the bottom and branches at the top? =)

Like this:

--o Layer3
--o Layer2

  + Second mask
  |
  + First mask
  |
--+ Layer1
--o Layer0

What do you think?