- User Since
- Feb 7 2019, 9:00 AM (10 w, 5 d)
Feb 12 2019
That's fine, but It was, I thought, a self evident topic, I just don't understand the need to bring in philosophy about the nature of an operator.
For the last time, (at the moment), what you do in the viewport has nothing to do with the outliner.
The active collection, the one shown in the status bar and in the viewport, is the one used to add new objects.
The "Move" to collection operator is intended to let you move your objects to ANY collection, not the active one.
What happens is that if you pick the first level of hierarchy it will move to the master (scene) collection.
So no bug here, things are working as intended.
Maybe the Move to Collection operator could gather all possible parent collections and offer these as a dropdown in the operator options
It is certainly a possibility, but involves more work by the developers
It is also not possible to consider a selected collection from the Outliner here (as you could have multiple outliners open with different collections selected).
Feb 10 2019
Added the following UI recommendation
Feb 9 2019
Fair enough. Being new to Blender and coming from the outside this is the golden time of opportunity to catch UI rough edges, before I get used to them and start ignoring stuff.
No issues here with the consensus decision other than the UI aspect.
Feb 8 2019
I think I triple checked, but there is always the chance I missed a setting somewhere. I am attaching the file here.
To help explain what's happening physically, here is an illustration that explores the effect of shrinking the whole camera by a factor of 2 (This would be equivalent to scaling the whole universe up by a factor of 2 while keeping the camera the same).
Just wanted to add a comment here.
The moment we have a camera system, scale becomes important not because the camera itself must be scaled, but quite the opposite; the camera needs to be aware of scale in order to keep itself a constant size. (a 50mm lens must always be 50mm even if the scene is now measured in miles). If you allow the camera to scale up with the model the dof would be identical in every scale which is not realistic (for example taking a photo of a building using a camera as big as a mountain will give you the same depth of field as taking a photo of a miniature building siting on your desk using a normal sized camera. The problem is in reality we do not take photos of buildings with mountain sized cameras; as a result when the camera body is kept constant, the subject size and distance relative to the sensor size changes and the circle of confusion registered for every pixel on the sensor changes)