Hey Larry, It's common to pre-comp work you're doing while compositing, or to work in stages. By not requiring a Deep Pixel (in Nuke, or in EXR2) to be "tidy", it makes merging deep pixels trivial, as well as keeping the amount of data significantly lower. By way of example, look at how the deep pixels in the paper have more points of data after being tidied. Peter Hillman had some specific examples showing how tidied volume renders became significantly larger than their untidied versions. Since the major downside, or limitation, of deep workflows is their increased data usage - every step which can prevent additional data bloat is one we should take!
Given that the paper provides a performant code sample which will tidy and merge samples, one that can be used by client applications, is this a major concern? Chris On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected]> wrote: > Can you elaborate on why the new document puts it on the head of the > reader to deal with overlapping or unsorted samples? What are the > circumstances in practice that lead to "MESSY" deep files? > > -- lg > > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Florian Kainz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > - Samples in a single pixel are explicitly allowed to be unsorted > > and overlapping. The previous version assumed that samples > always > > had to be sorted and non-overlapping, but that is not how deep > > images are used in practice. > > > > -- > Larry Gritz > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openexr-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel > -- I think this situation absolutely requires that a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. And we're just the guys to do it.
_______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
