Automatte is good

[Jonhollis]

why not just have a node that says automatte? its a bit like when iTunes used to do everything on the Mac. when it should just really do music. its not intuitive to add an image node when you want a matte. it is slightly the case with g mask. but again too many steps

[fredwarren]

@Jonhollis

why not just have a node that says automatte?

Because that node would end up being a duplicate of the Image node.

Let’s say you want to isolate this building:

If you initialise AutoMatte on this image without making any change, you will get:

Meaning that to get the desired result, you will need to use the ROI. And if the camera moves, you will need to track the ROI. And then you will need to visualize all of this. And then you will need to shrink/blur the matte. And then somebody will say they need to isolate three buildings but they do not want to use three AutoMatte nodes for it and that all three should be in the same node. And we will end up with an exact copy of what you have in the ML menu of the Image node.

@Jonhollis

its not intuitive to add an image node when you want a matte. it is slightly the case with g mask. but again too many steps

Have you tried to do what I suggested about saving the default setup / a user node? Once you do that, there is zero step.

[kexianliang]

@fredwarren

These do need an ROI with Tracking. These are Matchbox shaders with only the model in them. For AutoMatte, you need the ROI, the tracking, the post-process tools, etc.

It’s okay, we just need a standalone AutoMatte node （More precisely, it should be an “ML Matte” node that contains multiple Mattle layers such as AutoMattle, HumanBody, HumanFace, HumanHead, Sky, Models, etc.）with ROI, the tracking, the post-processing tools, and other matte functions. The purpose is not only for color grading nodes, but also for other nodes with Mask input channels.

[allklier]

The Automatte node relies on a lot of infrastructure that is present in the ‘Selective’ tab of Image. Replicating that in a standalone node is presumably not an unsubstantial effort.

Where I disagree with @fredwarren is, that adding an Image node does add a certain complexity, in that you now have to switch to the Image Schematic, and the matte isn’t automatically mapped to the Image node matte output unless you change the control mode. It just kills the flow when you’re working batch, and you’re not doing color work in the image node.

That said, having a separate Automatte node isn’t the right answer either. Rather what I think hits the right balance is to have a ‘Selective’ node, which can be a variation of the Image node (just like Image is a variation of Action really, and gMask Trancer for that matter).

However, this ‘Selective’ node is really an image node with a single Selective and automatically configured to the output. That is easy to add to a batch node tree and make part of a comp with minimal effort.

You of course loose the ability to combine it with other gMasks gets lost but for this simple use case that would be fine. You still have the Deluxe version.

In a way that is what you’re describing as a user preset, simply wrapped as a node in the standard node-bin, and without the schematic display. Just plain selective.

Where people get hung up is that Image is meant for color, yet there are many uses of Automatte as a superior separate Matte tool.

It does work in gMask Tracer, doesn’t it? So that’s the other avenue. Since folks are already used to using gMask Tracer in their workflows, that would connect the dots. A simple node that comes pre-configured with a single selective and no schematic would still be a ‘keep it simple’ move.

[fredwarren]

@allklier

Where I disagree with @fredwarren is, that adding an Image node does add a certain complexity, in that you now have to switch to the Image Schematic, and the matte isn’t automatically mapped to the Image node matte output unless you change the control mode. It just kills the flow when you’re working batch, and you’re not doing color work in the image node.

I’m not sure if somebody will ever try the steps I posted about setting the default setup or creating a bin in the User bin.

[allklier]

@fredwarren

I’m not sure if somebody will ever try the steps I posted about setting the default setup or creating a bin in the User bin.

I will. However, I didn’t think of them before you posted them.

So it’s the simple UI problem, that you make the user think to hard. This isn’t an obvious solution to most Flame users, even though it’s quite valid.

You could give me the steps to change the oil on my car. I probably would still prefer to stop by a mechanic and have them do it.

[fredwarren]

@allklier

So it’s the simple UI problem, that you make the user think to hard. This isn’t an obvious solution to most Flame users, even though it’s quite valid.

It comes down to the choice of spending a non-negligible amount of development resources to make something that can already be easily achieved today available out of the box or not.

[Jonhollis]

the thing is you say that would just be the image node. but it wouldn’t - it wouldn’t have any colour grading in it. just automatte. adding an image node to make a matte isnt intuitive. adding a mask is. but just overkill. most of the time id rather add the g masks separately . anyhow I give up. it was just a suggestion.

[allklier]

You can’t just make a new separate AutoMatte node without starting over with most of the code. It’s too tightly integrated with the framework. And even it’s repackaged, you would still have the same code in the background, it would just be hidden from view.

That said, the Auto Matte selective can be added in gMask Tracer, which may be more intuitive than Image (it’s the same code behind the scenes anyway). And would have the advantage that you could still do your gMasks there.

But I agree that it’s not the most intuitive way to get a Matte into an other wise non-color workflow.

[allklier]

@fredwarren

It comes down to the choice of spending a non-negligible amount of development resources to make something that can already be easily achieved today available out of the box or not.

Maybe as a compromise, why not pre-populate that ‘I’m a simple Automatte hiding in an Image node’ preset with the Flame install? Name it Automatte. Comes pre-installed.

Then people don’t have to follow your steps, and will be happy. It should take all but 30min of dev time?

You solve the problem, and people don’t have to think hard.

[allklier]

Here it is: AutoMatte preset of Image (Dropbox link)

[fredwarren]

Here’s a video what you need to do. Note that this can also be done with a GMask Tracer node. It will create a matte by default. No colour nodes.

[kexianliang]

@allklier

However, this ‘Selective’ node is really an image node with a single Selective and automatically configured to the output. That is easy to add to a batch node tree and make part of a comp with minimal effort.

What you described is exactly the “ML Mattle” node I want, a comprehensive AI Mattle node that includes AutoMate, but with different names. It can exist directly in the Batch workflow, not just in the Image Schematic.

[allklier]

Here is how you have to set it up in gMaskTracer. Also an extra step required to add the surface to make it work.

@fredwarren it can be saved as a preset. But these presets should just ship with Flame upon install. Why would we want to have a few hundred Flame artists make their own totally identical presets?

[andy_dill]

My vote is to have an “automatte” preset in the image node that ships with the software. The same way that the blur node ships with a bunch of bokeh shapes in it’s presets.

note: you can build these presets yourself. Save the file into: “/opt/Autodesk/presets/(flame version)/(node)”. You’ll probably have to save it someplace without locked up permissions and then command line move it into the right place.

[kexianliang]

@allklier

Rather what I think hits the right balance is to have a ‘Selective’ node, which can be a variation of the Image node (just like Image is a variation of Action really, and gMask Trancer for that matter).

However, this ‘Selective’ node is really an image node with a single Selective and automatically configured to the output. That is easy to add to a batch node tree and make part of a comp with minimal effort.

You of course loose the ability to combine it with other gMasks gets lost but for this simple use case that would be fine. You still have the Deluxe version.

In a way that is what you’re describing as a user preset, simply wrapped as a node in the standard node-bin, and without the schematic display. Just plain selective.

Where people get hung up is that Image is meant for color, yet there are many uses of Automatte as a superior separate Matte tool.

It does work in gMask Tracer, doesn’t it? So that’s the other avenue. Since folks are already used to using gMask Tracer in their workflows, that would connect the dots. A simple node that comes pre-configured with a single selective and no schematic would still be a ‘keep it simple’ move.

I think the Flame team should develop a separate “Selective Mattle” node based on your idea, specifically to output Mattle. Let’s call it that for now, the vast majority of the code already exists and only needs to be integrated. Perhaps a new Flame Feedback is worth submitting.

[allklier]

@bryanb already made one a week ago. I copied this thread into it and described the single selective design.

Feel free to upvote, if you haven’t yet: FL03535

[fredwarren]

@allklier

it can be saved as a preset. But these presets should just ship with Flame upon install. Why would we want to have a few hundred Flame artists make their own totally identical presets?

This thread was about efficiency. With the method I demonstrated in my video, you create the node and that’s it you are done. With a preset, you would need to create the node, select the preset from the drop-down and confirm that you want to overwrite the current setup. Which is not much more efficient than adding the node, selecting the Selective object, and clicking on the Add AutoMatte button in my opinion.

[philm]

@fredwarren

I’m not sure if somebody will ever try the steps I posted about setting the default setup or creating a bin in the User bin.

i did exactly what you said, popped it into the user bin.
took about 30 seconds.
totally works (albeit very slowly on this little test machine)
default setup totally works as well.

[allklier]

@fredwarren

This thread was about efficiency. With the method I demonstrated in my video, you create the node and that’s it you are done. With a preset, you would need to create the node, select the preset from the drop-down and confirm that you want to overwrite the current setup. Which is not much more efficient than adding the node, selecting the Selective object, and clicking on the Add AutoMatte button in my opinion.

My bad for using imprecise language.

What I envisaged, is exactly what you demonstrated - a node saved in the User Bin, except it would already be there when Flame is installed. And probably wouldn’t be the user bin, but some other ‘ADSK preconfigured nodes’ bin (better name of course).

That would make it as fast as you demonstrated for the user, except without each one of us having to do it separately.