Hi, > You actually told me the reason why we have openEXR & MultiLayer (exr) is > because some third party software do not support Multilayer properly.
I wouldn't have said that. At the time there was no other program using openEXR multilayer at all. I asked ILM to propose a standard for it, but they were not interested. > So my proposal was for Blender to render 1 "image sequence" by passes out > of the box without going through the trouble of compositor, and this only > in case the user didn't choose a multiLayer format. You're making it sound so complicated... here's my version: A new OpenEXR render output option, that saves the layers and passes per frame as individual files, according to naming specifications that are used for MultiLayer already. For frame 1 it would look like this for example: ./0001.RenderLayer.combined.exr ./0001.RenderLayer.Z.exr ./0001.Characters.AO.exr ./0001.Characters.Diffuse.exr Where the .exr files store channels as specified by the exr spec. Sometimes 1 channel, or 3, or 4. The dots can become underscores too; dunno if programs get confused with it. Having custom naming for passes or channels is something cycles work can look into. -Ton- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation t...@blender.org www.blender.org Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands On 17 Jan, 2012, at 21:16, François T. wrote: > Ton : > My bad for calling it better or whatever, I'm sorry that's all you > understood and remember from my mail, in which I tried to explain each > point of the current process and how I "wish" it to be ! > > But maybe the best way to understand it is if you try to render each pass > into different image sequence (whatever format : png, jpg,tga, tiff, ...) > and see how long the process is and how it would slow down the render time. > If you do so, you'll see that the only way to do it is manually by hand via > the compositor. > > You actually told me the reason why we have openEXR & MultiLayer (exr) is > because some third party software do not support Multilayer properly. That > doesn't mean the user wouldn't like to have all his passes seperated. > > So my proposal was for Blender to render 1 "image sequence" by passes out > of the box without going through the trouble of compositor, and this only > in case the user didn't choose a multiLayer format. > Basically assuming that if he didn't setup the compositor, selected a few > passes to render and select a format as PNG for example, then it means he > wants 1 sequences by passes in a PNG format saved on his harddrive (that > why I suggested a path naming convention as well). And same goes for > multiple RenderLayers. > > I honestly don't know how to explain it more clearly I'm sorry :'( > > > F. > > > 2012/1/17 gespert...@gmail.com <gespert...@gmail.com> > >> Ton: >> I think he's talking about how tedious is to output individual passes >> as image sequences using file-output nodes. >> >> For instance, storing 5 passes to tga sequences requires you to add 5 >> file-output nodes, set them up with the right path, and it still >> requires the presence of a composite node in order to save animation. >> That could be simplified and the composite node shoudn't be required >> if file-output nodes are used. >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> Bf-committers@blender.org >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > François Tarlier > www.francois-tarlier.com > www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers