Sounds good, I'm going to patch it in now and test. I'll try to get you results as soon as I can. busy week already and it's only Monday.
Cheers, ~Andrew On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that PR is against master, though if you download it as a patch I > would expect it to be applicable to the head of 1.6. > > You should also be able to pull it into your master and then cherry-pick > it into your 1.6 if that's easier for you to test. > > In any case, if it's approved, I will certainly merge it (or the > equivalent) into both branches. > > > On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks much Larry, I'll give it a whirl. just out of curiousity, is that > commit for the 1.6 branch(es) or just master (which I guess is 1.7 at this > point)? I haven't been following the tags super close. I can certainly make > it work either way just wondered. > > Cheers, > > ~Andrew > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK, here is the proposed implementation: >> https://github.com/OpenImageIO/oiio/pull/1362 >> >> >> On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hmm, good point, forgot about this. uint8 would be weird default on the >> python side. >> >> I like the oiio.FLOAT default idea better than the others as it will >> probably be more obvious what happened in their code should they happen to >> be using the read without supplying the format. >> >> It may break things but it breaks them the "least" in my opinion. >> Requiring the argument for every call is probably better long term but >> we're already changing behavior with supplying oiio.UNKNOWN so we should >> probably confine the real changes to those folks as best we can. >> >> Just my two cents. >> >> TL;DR: I'd go with oiio.FLOAT as a default >> >> ~Andrew >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK, just one more wrinkle. >>> >>> For a script that passes no format at all, the default is/was UNKNOWN, >>> but that changes behavior. Before, it would return an array based on >>> spec.format (the "widest" format of the channels). But now, it means to >>> return a uint8 blob of packed native data, which is "advanced usage" for >>> sure, and possibly not a good default. >>> >>> I propose changing the parameter default to oiio.FLOAT, which gives a >>> sensible behavior for apps as well as making it very likely that old apps >>> will continue to work in some kind of sensible way. >>> >>> Another way to go is to require the argument to be passed. That will >>> break old Python scripts, but will force everything to be explicit moving >>> forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Two thumbs up! (packed into one float thumbs up) >>> >>> HP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Gartner < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yep, I'm good with that. >>>> >>>> Thanks again for teasing this apart Larry/HP >>>> >>>> ~Andrew >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> OK, that sounds reasonable. So we have: >>>>> >>>>> * If you ask for a specific type, convert and return an array of that >>>>> type. If you ask for HALF, the half bit pattern gets returned in a uint16 >>>>> array, since there is no true half type. >>>>> >>>>> * If you ask for UNKNOWN (explicitly "give me raw data"), it returns >>>>> an array of unsigned chars containing the raw data. >>>>> >>>>> Everybody can live with that? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of the options "pass half values disguised as an unsigned short >>>>> array" feels the cleanest to me. You keep the right number of components >>>>> in >>>>> the array, if you have any checks for that, and the data to be convert to >>>>> halfs is already grouped appropriately. >>>>> >>>>> Converting to halfs is also a one line call to numpy: >>>>> np.frombuffer(np.getbuffer(np.uint16(uint16Value)), dtype=np.float16) >>>>> Ex. >>>>> https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/clf/Common.py#L92 >>>>> >>>>> HP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In C++, asking for UNKNOWN just copies the native format data and >>>>>> leaves it for you to sort out. But to C++, a buffer is a buffer, you're >>>>>> passing it a void* in any case. >>>>>> >>>>>> In Python, it's dynamic typing, so read_image RETURNS an array, and >>>>>> it has to be an array of some type. Which type? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we all are coming to agree that if you ask for UNKNOWN, >>>>>> probably the most analogous thing (to C++) is to return an unsigned char >>>>>> array, filled with the raw data, and leave you to sort it out. That's as >>>>>> close to "untyped raw buffer" as we can get. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you *ask* for HALF, it's nonsensical, because you can't make an >>>>>> actual half array in Python. You could promote and convert it to float. >>>>>> Or >>>>>> you could return raw values in unsigned char array (like if you'd passed >>>>>> UNKNOWN). Or, yeah, another possibility is to pass half values disguised >>>>>> as >>>>>> an unsigned short array? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not super fond of the last choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right now, we do something stupider than any of those -- which is to >>>>>> pack raw half values into a buffer, but the buffer advertises itself as >>>>>> being a float array. That clearly needs to change. It was never >>>>>> intentional; I just never thought carefully about that case because I >>>>>> never >>>>>> imagined anybody asking for a type that didn't exist in Python. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, current proposal on the table: >>>>>> >>>>>> * If you ask for a type that can be a valid Python array type, >>>>>> convert and return an array of that type. >>>>>> >>>>>> * If you ask for UNKNOWN (explicitly "give me raw data") or HALF >>>>>> (implicitly so, because it doesn't exist in Python), it returns an array >>>>>> of >>>>>> unsigned chars containing the raw data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Returning a series of unsigned 16 bit ints for a call with the type >>>>>> half feels like a nice middle ground. The consumer will have to know that >>>>>> halfs aren't natively supported in Python, and how to convert from >>>>>> unsigned >>>>>> short to half, but that doesn't feel like a large burden. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't speak to the expected behavior of the UNKNOWN in Python. I >>>>>> haven't used that path in Python or C++. >>>>>> >>>>>> HP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have especially strong feelings about this one way or the >>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just returning a raw data byte array matches the C++ behavior more >>>>>>> closely, no argument there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the "con" side, perhaps I was thinking of compatibility? We're >>>>>>> really talking about changing the meaning of oiio.UNKNOWN from "use >>>>>>> spec.format" to "return raw data", which differ in the case of mixed >>>>>>> channel types. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are there Python programs out there that pass UNKNOWN (or pass >>>>>>> nothing, defaulting to UNKNOWN) and rely on getting the right kind of >>>>>>> array >>>>>>> back that matches spec.format? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Andrew Gartner < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Second, I could collapse 2a and 2b, and just say that if you ask >>>>>>> for UNKNOWN, you get an array of uint8 back with the native raw data" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what are the drawbacks to doing this? I admit >>>>>>> I like having some way of getting at the raw data at any time (hence my >>>>>>> original method of exposing the native calls). That allowed me to check >>>>>>> my >>>>>>> imagespec and regardless of whether I had a mixed format image or all >>>>>>> half >>>>>>> data I could get everything in one read call. Granted I'm used to >>>>>>> keeping >>>>>>> track of and manipulating the strides of those arrays in bytes just out >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> old habit (and C++ usage) so maybe I'm the minority opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even so, your current thinking still works if that's where the >>>>>>> consensus is I'm happy to use it as such. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that the only format that we can encounter as pixel data, >>>>>>>> which does not exist in Python arrays, is 'half'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So let me rephrase my current thinking: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. If you ask for a specific type (except HALF), you'll get a >>>>>>>> Python array of that type holding the converted values. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Otherwise (i.e., you ask for UNKNOWN or HALF), you will get the >>>>>>>> native (raw) data. >>>>>>>> (a) If all channels are the same data type and it's anything but >>>>>>>> half, you'll get the data as a Python array of that type. >>>>>>>> (b) Otherwise (half, or mixed channel types), you'll get the data >>>>>>>> as a Python array of unsigned bytes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that (1) is the easy case to deal with: ask for the type you >>>>>>>> want, let it do the conversion. If you go for option (2) by asking for >>>>>>>> native data, you get a blob and it's up to you to figure out what to do >>>>>>>> with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are two other choices we could make. I'm not inclined to at >>>>>>>> the moment, but would be happy to do so if people think it's helpful. >>>>>>>> First, if you ask for HALF, I could have it return float. Second, I >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> collapse 2a and 2b, and just say that if you ask for UNKNOWN, you get >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> array of uint8 back with the native raw data, even if it happened to >>>>>>>> be all >>>>>>>> channels of the same type, a type that you could have made into a >>>>>>>> Python >>>>>>>> array of the right type. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Picking this up a little later in the day. Sorry about that. Adding >>>>>>>> quotes from earlier in the thread just so it's clear what I'm >>>>>>>> responding to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The current status: >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> If you read_image(oiio.FLOAT) of a half image (on disk), you get >>>>>>>> floats back? >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> But if you read_image(oiio.HALF) of a half image, you get what >>>>>>>> appears to be an array of floats, but they are actually packed half >>>>>>>> values? >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proposal: >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> 1. If you ask for a (non-UNKNOWN) format that exists in Python, it >>>>>>>> converts to and returns an array of that format. >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> This is the current behavior, no? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> 2. If you ask for UNKNOWN, or a format that doesn't exist, it >>>>>>>> returns the raw data in an unsigned char array. >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> It feels like this is two proposals (Trying not to clash with your >>>>>>>> earlier 2a and 2b): >>>>>>>> 2c. If you ask for UNKNOWN, return raw data in an unsigned char >>>>>>>> array >>>>>>>> 2d. If you ask for a format that doesn't exist, return raw data in >>>>>>>> an unsigned char array >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2c. feels right. It should work for the case of typical RGB or RGBA >>>>>>>> images but also for multi-layer EXRs. The consumer can convert the >>>>>>>> channels >>>>>>>> to their intended types using methods from the ImageSpec. I'd suggest >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> asking for UNKNOWN lead unequivocally to a raw unsigned char array. >>>>>>>> Supporting the special cases described in the 2a and 2b listed earlier >>>>>>>> would require additional logic on the consuming code side to account >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> those cases. Feels like a recipe for lots of brittle special case >>>>>>>> logic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2d. is less clear. How is the change in behavior from returning >>>>>>>> real values for known types to returning raw char array data for >>>>>>>> unknown >>>>>>>> types signaled to the consumer? Is this still something that >>>>>>>> programmers >>>>>>>> have to just know a priori? How is this different from the current >>>>>>>> behavior? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose the list of types known to OIIO but not Python is finite >>>>>>>> and likely to shrink over time. Having special cases like we have in >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> example code, isn't such a big deal in the mean time, but then that's >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>> saying the the current behavior is fine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope that's helpful in some way. Aside from agreeing that adding an >>>>>>>> UNKNOWN option is a good idea, we're still left without a good way to >>>>>>>> consume half data without accounting for it explicitly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gartner < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That would certainly take care of things for me. Hopefully not too >>>>>>>>> much of an impact on others as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ~Andrew >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So I'm proposing: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. If you ask for a (non-UNKNOWN) format that exists in Python, >>>>>>>>>> it converts to and returns an array of that format. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. If you ask for UNKNOWN, or a format that doesn't exist, it >>>>>>>>>> returns the raw data in an unsigned char array. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a variation: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2a. If you ask for UNKNOWN, and all channels are the same format >>>>>>>>>> and it's a type that exists in Python, return that type. >>>>>>>>>> 2b. If you ask for UNKNOWN and it's a "mixed type" file, or a >>>>>>>>>> single type but one that doesn't exist in Python, or the type you >>>>>>>>>> ask for >>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist in Python, return raw data packed into an unsigned >>>>>>>>>> char array. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Andrew Gartner < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yea the C++ implementation works well with oiio.UNKNOWN, I kinda >>>>>>>>>> miss that in the python side to be honest. Right now it looks like >>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>> revert back to spec.format if oiio.UNKNOWN is supplied to >>>>>>>>>> read_scanlines, >>>>>>>>>> that can be problematic if you have multiple formats in a single >>>>>>>>>> image so >>>>>>>>>> I've avoided it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @Larry, to you question about returning an unsigned char array, I >>>>>>>>>> like the idea on principle in that it preserves the decoupling as >>>>>>>>>> you said. >>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if there would be any weirdness if you had to grab >>>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>>> channels of an image that had different data types one of which isn't >>>>>>>>>> representable in python? Would it default to just unsigned char yet >>>>>>>>>> again >>>>>>>>>> in that case? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @Haarm: interesting, I didn't realize they were >>>>>>>>>> concatenated/packed like that! I just saw the 'f' in the python >>>>>>>>>> array and >>>>>>>>>> assumed I was seeing promoted values :) I'm still scratching my head >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> the multiple format reads though, same as for Larry's idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the replies, Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ~Andrew >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you're up for using numpy, this will get you the half float >>>>>>>>>>> values without too much extra work: >>>>>>>>>>> oiioFloats = inputImage.read_image(oiio.HALF) >>>>>>>>>>> oiioHalfs = np.frombuffer(np.getbuffer(np.float32(oiioFloats)), >>>>>>>>>>> dtype=np.float16) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> One note, the current OIIO Python implementation doesn't promote >>>>>>>>>>> the halfs to float on read. The 'float' values in the returned >>>>>>>>>>> buffer are >>>>>>>>>>> actually each two concatenated half values, and the float buffer >>>>>>>>>>> will have >>>>>>>>>>> half as many entries as you would expect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Example usage for reading here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L126 >>>>>>>>>>> and the reverse for writing: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L193 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HP >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In C++, you can just call read_scanlines and pass >>>>>>>>>>>> format=UNKNOWN to get back the raw data in its original format. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that in Python, there is no 'half' so it's not >>>>>>>>>>>> quite sure what to return. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I kinda like the decoupling of the raw reads (read_native_*) >>>>>>>>>>>> which are the part overloaded by the individual format readers, >>>>>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>> app-callable read_*. So perhaps rather than exposing >>>>>>>>>>>> read_native_*, we >>>>>>>>>>>> should just modify the Python bindings for read_* to notice that >>>>>>>>>>>> if the >>>>>>>>>>>> native raw data is not a type representable in Python, to return >>>>>>>>>>>> it as an >>>>>>>>>>>> unsigned character array? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Andrew Gartner < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Hey all, >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Apologies if this has come up before, but I'm curious if >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone had considered exposing ImageInput.read_native_scanlines() >>>>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>> python side before. The reason I ask is mainly because the half >>>>>>>>>>>> datatype >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist in the native python array class which OIIO uses for >>>>>>>>>>>> python >>>>>>>>>>>> reads. Currently the python array will punt and for anything to >>>>>>>>>>>> float >>>>>>>>>>>> (which I'd rather avoid). >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > I had put together an implementation in OIIO 1.5 that simply >>>>>>>>>>>> took the pixel size as a parameter and exposed >>>>>>>>>>>> read_native_scanlines that >>>>>>>>>>>> way and that allowed me to get the right data properly into either >>>>>>>>>>>> numpy or >>>>>>>>>>>> a raw char python array. However, I'd rather not be forked off >>>>>>>>>>>> like that as >>>>>>>>>>>> it's a headache trying to remain current with the mainline, plus >>>>>>>>>>>> others may >>>>>>>>>>>> find it useful. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Does anyone think exposing the function in general makes >>>>>>>>>>>> sense? I'm happy to send the implementation if anyone cares to see >>>>>>>>>>>> it as >>>>>>>>>>>> well. >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > ~Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Larry Gritz >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
