I'm liking this plan. Let's proceed for now by doing the right thing, and a few
people who notice a problem can just invert how they request aspect ratio from
oiiotool.
If this is a continual problem (more and more people confused by this behavior,
reporting it as a bug), then we can consider doing the "wrong" thing, just for
JPEG, in order to produce files that use the same incorrect convention as Nuke
and RV.
I'm crossing my fingers that the combination of non-square pixel aspect and
JPEG files is rare -- after all, nobody had noticed the issue at all until now.
-- lg
On Jan 30, 2015, at 5:17 PM, ran sariel <[email protected]> wrote:
> since I'm the one bringing all this headache ..
> I'm totally happy with defining PixelAspectRatio as 0.5 when converting with
> oiiotool. expecting it to show in the RV/Photoshot as aspectRatio 2.
>
>
> On 01/30/2015 04:58 PM, Larry Gritz wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Nathan Rusch<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems absurd, but kind of looks like its going to come down to whether
>>> you would rather OIIO be technically correct (as we understand it), but
>>> annoy people and prompt them to submit erroneous bug reports by creating
>>> images that look wrong in all the applications they are viewed in, or have
>>> it be "wrong" for the sole purpose of keeping people happy. Tough call
>>> indeed...
>> Head exploding...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is it worth getting in touch with the maintainers of libjpeg to see if they
>>> would stand by the comment in their source as it relates to the JFIF spec?
>>> Or maybe just asking The Foundry and Tweak about performing an about-face?
>> I'm happy to contact all three. But if they change, there will be a
>> versionitis problem between old and new versions of those packages. And in
>> any case, PhotoShop is still backwards as well, and my intuition is that my
>> chances of getting them to change, or to care at all, is much less than with
>> Nuke and rv, where at least I know people who would humor me by listening to
>> me make a case for it.
>>
>> Sigh. I'll do some experiments to see if there's any way around this. At the
>> very least, I want to restrict the wrongness to be completely contained in
>> the JPEG read/write, and not infect the rest of OIIO (including the app
>> side), where aspect> 1 should certainly mean wide pixels.
>>
>> Another consideration: In 6 years, we have not had a single comment about
>> our JPEG I/O not supporting aspect ratio or the resolution fields until this
>> week, so perhaps the number of people who will be annoyed by our doing it
>> "right" may be extremely limited, and a better solution is to make sure
>> those few people know the weird set of hoops to jump through to make the
>> images right in Nuke and rv (e.g., if you want aspect 2.0, you should ask
>> oiiotool for 0.5).
>>
>> -- lg
>>
>> --
>> Larry Gritz
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oiio-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
>
> --
> Ran Sariel
> CTO / Pipeline supervisor
> The Embassy VFX Inc.
> 177 West 7th Ave, 4th Floor
> Vancouver, BC
> Phone: (604) 696-6862 ext. 244
>
> [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oiio-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
--
Larry Gritz
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Oiio-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
