In T88997#1176187, @Richard Antalik (ISS) wrote:

Technically this is mentioned in https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/editors/preferences/file_paths.html#data
That Scripts field is for "An additional location to search for Python scripts."

BLENDER_SYSTEM_SCRIPTS overrides default scripts location completely therefore requires full set of scripts.

That's exactly my point - that page only mentions the field in Preferences.
BLENDER_USER_SCRIPTS seems to act the same way, which I would expect from BLENDER_SYSTEM_SCRIPTS as well, only system-wide.
Since that's not the case and it does, as you say, expect the full set of scripts, it would be useful to mention this in the docs on environment variables, which are pretty vague: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/advanced/command_line/arguments.html?highlight=environment%20variables#environment-variables

In T88997#1174544, @Richard Antalik (ISS) wrote:

Here is how I have set my environment:
Copy folder blender-2.93\2.93\scripts to D:\scripts
Then set BLENDER_SYSTEM_SCRIPTS to D:\scripts

Is that correct?

Starting with factory settings yields the exact same problem, only with the default interface. A broken add-on would have surprised me anyway, because the directory in the environment variable is the exact same one I used to have specified in Blender's File Paths preferences, and everything worked fine.
Here are the log files. I couldn't find anything in them related to environment variables though.

Exact same problem on my other workstation (Microsoft Store installation as well).

In T88997#1173872, @Richard Antalik (ISS) wrote:

Is this behavior limited to Microsoft Store version?
I wasn't able to reproduce this issue

In T68926#1123269, @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) wrote:

It will be looked at when actual work starts on this. The tasks lists things that I am sure we should support and how, some of the suggestions I don't think are the proper solution.

@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) could you take a look at the many suggestions that have been posted here, and consider updating the task description with them? They have been made a long time ago.
While it's unlikely that major changes happen soon, said suggestions are well-intended, yet on the verge of being completely forgotten underneath a task description that still lacks important stuff while addressing non-essential targets.

I was pretty surprised to discover the flaws in displacement baking as it currently stands. I'm happy to see this task but I'm a bit astonished about its lack of information.
Since I can't find much that's up to date, I went exploring with my students today. I hope this helps as some sort of overview from an end user perspective.

In T68926#1017217, @blender user #1436282 (sonicdee1981) wrote:

for me - acescg is working quite good, and blender support is needed.
Where it works, kind of, by replacing the colormanagement folder the downside is picking colorspaces for the assets textures and super nasty: changing colors in all rgb fields is nearly unusable ;)
so if anyone has time, would be great to have aces inside

Thanks, great work @Jeroen Bakker (jbakker) !

In T67328#991146, @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) wrote:

Yes, it's a feature request. That was ok when we were tracking Blender Studio requests on developer.blender.org, but we don't do that here anymore.

In T79122#983270, @Richard Antalik (ISS) wrote:

I don't think this is intentional, as in we want to use different strings on purpose. But this definitely isn't a bug.

Changing this probably isn't very hard, however there are implications that have to be considered, for example a lot of addons may stop working after this change.

... like with most Python API changes? ;)
To me this just looks like an oversight. And I'd personally rather see addons updating their code according to an API change, than having to keep remapping these strings for all eternity because of something that wasn't intentional to begin with.

Mentioning T72420 here. It's a design task, so it's a solution rather than a problem!

@Jeroen Bakker (jbakker) sounds great, thanks!

@Jeroen Bakker (jbakker) Could you elaborate on why this design is invalid? I'm not super familiar with the internals of Blender, but describing the issue might help people understand.

Just noticed that it only occurs when the image is at a zoom level of less than 100%.

@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) I disagree. Feature requests are scoped to obviously missing things that generally would be nice to have - hence that page's reference to Right-Click Select etc.
The only feature request I see here is that mention of a dropdown - which is a mere suggestion on how to fix the error. It's the error I'm reporting - how exactly it gets solved is up to you.
The error at hand is that Blender only allows colour picking in one space. This results in output that's unexpectedly wrong in many cases. To the vast majority of users, that will look like nothing but a bug.

I just reported T77736, totally forgot about this design task.
I would however like to stress that it's necessary for the colour picker to allow the user to choose between a display space and the scene linear space when colour picking. In any context. Shader nodes, texture painting, vertex colours, you name it.
Internally, always consider the scene linear values, but expose the alternative in the UI.

Good to know, but like many things in Blender this should be made clear to the user.
Even just a tooltip saying 'requires mirrored strands' would remove the confusion.

My (slightly controversial) two cents are to completely remove any blend modes that are not compatible with scene-referred data, HDR or otherwise.
Adobe PDF blend modes (screen, color dodge, ..) are *not* designed to work with it, and yet Cycles, Eevee, and the Compositor (should) operate exclusively on it. It is true that most users are completely unaware of this, and continue to use them 'because they know them from Photoshop'.

In T75875#913091, @Robert Guetzkow (rjg) wrote:

Most MixRGB modes aren't made for a scene-referred workflow and that includes Color Dodge and Color Burn.

This is correct, the only ones that actually work on scene-referred data are add, subtract, multiply and divide. Anything else is not designed for higher dynamic ranges.

Awesome! You sure work fast, @Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk)

Great to see this being tackled! One small note:

Looking good as far as I can tell. A few things:

Just found D3433 and D5769

I believe we're mixing terms here? I've used the concept of light groups in Arnold in the past, as (I think) a precursor of custom AOVs, where the lights' influence gets output to a separate render pass per group. In which case this seems better covered by D4837.
@Dalai Felinto (dfelinto) 's task description is closer to what @Gavin Scott (Zoot) writes:

Applications that support Light Linking generally let you associate either individual lights or groups of lights with one or more objects to illuminate.

In T71357#813086, @Jeroen Bakker (jbakker) wrote:

The more I look into the subject the more issues I detect.

Ironically, that makes me very happy :D

• When rendering and compositing the linear scene ref space (default REC709) must be used. This means that the overlay/mode engines will be drawing in REC709 and only as a last step the view transform will be applied.
  • Note that this will also impact how Grease pencil blends colors and there will be rendering differences. These differences are currently also noticeable during final rendering of GP projects.
  • Images that are rendered in the background are currently fixed to REC709 or sRGB. other colorspaces are ignored. We should transform the image buffer from its color space to one of them (depends a bit on use).

Without having a deeper look (I havent checked how the names are actually ending up when blender writes them), I am reading this as Sets.Glass.Combined would be a valid name for layer/sub-layer? (Unless a deeper nesting is not allowed? Maybe there is no layer.sublayer.sublayer.channel allowed?)

I don't get it. Why don't you simply NOT use . in your view layer names?

That's obviously my workaround now. I'm simply pointing out that Blender isn't following a common convention, and its own convention is to use periods in *all* datablock naming, including view layers. Which I happen to prefer over anything else for a number of reasons.

Apparently it does work if the glass object is not inside the volume object. This defeats the purpose in many cases though.

In T71408#807777, @maylog (maylog) wrote:

So, ask a question, what can I do to get the same SRGB inversion color as in Photoshop??

I think your expectations are incorrect. Your sRGB image is *always* linearised, the second you indicated that its file encoding is indeed sRGB. Behind the scenes of the compositor, this removes the sRGB OETF and turns the image into a display linear sRGB buffer.

Many many kudos for the write-up. This would tackle a huge amount of the current issues.

When doing viewport rendering the color management is done on the CPU what is typically slow.

But doing it on the GPU would be less accurate, you once told me. How inaccurate are we talking? Is it worth the trade-off?

I think it's more superficial than that. Lookdev Mode to me seems like a temporary World that Blender creates and tells Eevee to use while the Viewport is in that mode. In that case this World uses an environment texture like any other World does, only without the amount of controls we normally would be presented with.

T71357 was made yesterday by @Jeroen Bakker (jbakker) and would resolve a huge amount of the current problems.
T71389 is a small thing, but relevant to the issue.

when using a different OCIO config, the Rec.709 colour space is almost never listed as just 'Linear', so Blender picks a different space from the config

This is probably best avoided by looking up roles instead of literal colour space names.

I've attempted summarising the DevTalk post. Of course the original article and its reactions contain much more information - and a bit of sidetracking - but I've tried to condense the gist of it as best I could. With just a hint of personal opinion here and there.

Also linking D2547 here. In my opinion not absolutely essential, but the discussion is lengthy and should not be disregarded.

The core issue is that the HSV code is legacy, and was based on the nonlinear assumptions behind sRGB.

Would this be the cause of the HSV colour picker returning crazy RGB ratios when using an alternative OCIO config?

Any news on this?

Simply create a new text object, the issue is already clearly visible in the placeholder text, between the letters 'T' and 'e'.

Seems a bit pointless to attach a sample file for issues that are clear as day with default values. But perhaps this screenshot shows what I mean.

All non-master commits are "unpublished" since a while now

@William Reynish (billreynish) Ah, 'non-master'. Didn't spot that before. I haven't said anything!

In the Transform Preferences, Rendering Space should be labeled as Working Space as involving also the Compositor and Sequencer.

Correct.

The Image Editor needs a Viewing Transform option clearly visible since going back and forth to the Color Management panel is counterproductive.

Also correct. Just like the Save as Render flag, View as Render should make way for a more granular UI (Color Space is already there, but View Transform is not).
Note that the settings inside the Color Management panel don't even influence the view inside the Image Editor, as they only pertain to rendering and output.
View as Render is not only useless and badly named, it's also incorrect to use it. An image used as input should not have a transform used for viewing output slapped onto it. The checkbox should be replaced by a View Transform enum, also stored per image datablock.

LiftGammaGain should stay since many videos are composited, edited and graded in Rec.709, and many workflows involve this space but Lift should be fixed, it behaves as Lift+Power.

Just because your input material is Rec. 709, doesn't mean that it is display referred. On the contrary - the Blender compositor operates linearly, which is where Lift/Gamma/Gain breaks. The algorithm works on shadows, midtones and highlights, which are impossible to separate when using scene referred data.

Also LOG based controls should be included like a Contrast with a Pivot option (add Pivot to the contrast node?)
Shadow/Midtone/Highlight control wheels should be included for LOG based secondaries.

Again, compositing is a linear affair. The log controls you mention (including a shadows/midtones/highlights separation) are geared towards a grading workflow. Which should not happen on linear data, unless the tools use a log shaper if both input and output are stored linearly, like in an ACES workflow. But I digress.
It's beyond the scope of this task, but @Troy Sobotka (sobotka) did suggest a dedicated Grading Editor with correct controls for a log-based workflow. This editor would for example allow the colourist to work on NodeTrees linked to VSE strips, which is similar to e.g. DaVinci Resolve.
That Pivot option, however, is something that could very well be added to colour manipulation nodes already present in Blender, like Brightness/Contrast, but also Slope/Offset/Power.

A LUT node to apply different luts not only for artistic but also technical transforms, tonemappers, etc.

LUT nodes, enums for every node, .. all ways to prep data more adequately for the nodes they're about to go through.

In T69652#773519, @William Reynish (billreynish) wrote:

@Sam Van Hulle (sam_vh) On the contrary, there WAS a confirmation popup for creating new folders, but that is now removed.

Is there a reason for ea94cade2991 to be an unpublished commit?

Found a few more related tasks that might be worth listing here.
Some of them are quite old, but the fact that they are still marked as open, at least warrants a check for whether they should be. Especially the ones containing lengthy discussions that I'm not sure how valid they are today.

Previous status was probably the best way to never make it into a developer's field of attention.
Updating projects and priority so the devs can decide where this belongs.

Great to see that the wiki document made it into a task. I would like to suggest this task to be made a parent task of all other open tasks regarding the subject. It's great that this task is finally here - it would be even better if we make it an overview of everything else - stuff like T46860, T34684, T68242, T67832, etc. Then at least we have a bird's eye view on the scope of what needs to be done.

Seemed to be related to X Mirror being enabled.