Chad Capeland wrote:Maybe you're not following what Bryan was saying, but the issue isn't making the macro, it's using it. Relative coordinates ensures that the macro works on anything it is applied to. Whether that's proxies or completely different projects at completely different facilities.
I understand what Bryain is saying, I code (although miserably) myself. What I'm saying is that converting between relative and absolute coordinates behind the scenes is easy (and fiddling with pixels in the end needs abs coords anyway) and just as easy is to present the controls to user either in relative units or absolute, depending on what makes most sense. Transform scale value for example makes no sense in pixels, cropping on the other hand is most logical in pixel values (you are cropping to some exact format afterall). Proxies are not generated manually in macro, the engine of software does this behind the scenes either by supersampling or dropping scanlines and it has nothing to do with whether you are doing something in relative or abs coords in your macro or whether your slider shows relative or abs coords.
Chad Capeland wrote:Really? I got that all the time. "Put it a third of the way down" or "split the difference" or "make it about half that".
We are probably dealing with different kind of work which is fine. My point is that for what I do, I find pixel values most of the time either more useful or not an issue. But as I said before, it is also a matter of personal preference and how someones brain is wired.
Chad Capeland wrote:We might have found the issue.
Do you use modifiers to scale the sliders?
No, ordinary sliders. What makes my head hurt is that sliders dont have scale indicated on them, so I can't click on a place on slider to get to ballpark quickly. And even if they had scale markers, I can't click and place anyway because slider increments in fixed steps instead of setting the value where I clicked. Sounds like a teeny-weeny thing but isn't.
Chad Capeland wrote:The point is that at no time is having the values scaled to a variable image size useful. If users were so set in their understanding of the relationship between the desired effect and the number of pixels in their image, they'd struggle to change between 720p and 8K projects. Maybe if users always saw an absolutely scaled image, that would work, but the images the user looks at is always scaled. You don't swap out a 30" monitor for a 60" one when moving between a 4K ane 8K project.
I agree to disagree. It is a matter of preference, but arguing that one is not useful at all, never, is a bit too much
Why would I struggle to set the effect in pixels any more than setting it in relative values? I use my eyes for that, I don't just put a 20% glow on everything every time with my eyes closed, but I can grasp numbers in range lets say 1-200 much more easily than range 0.00007672-0.025125. I usually fit the image to viewer to see full image, why would I need to see an absolutely scaled image? Working in pixel values does not mean I have to work 1:1 all the time.