openexr-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension?


From: Richard Addison-Wood
Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension?
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:39:38 +1200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090827)

As I understand the impetus for having recommendations for the file name extensions, I am thinking that it might make sense to make the following suggestions:

If, within your pipeline, you wish to use the file name extension of an OpenEXR image file to indicate that it has deep data, you may wish to consider using .dexr (for mono with deep data), .dsxr (for stereo with deep data), or .dmxr (for other multi-channel with deep data).

Alternatively, if you only want to distinguish between deep and non-deep, consider using .dexr when there is any deep data.

If, within your pipeline, you wish to use other means for distinguishing the form of the data in an OpenEXR image file, consider using .exr across the board.

On 07/19/12 07:35, Jonathan Litt wrote:
If an extension were going to be recommended along the lines of "sxr", there would also need to be some guidance as to when to use the extension at all. Given the alembic-like nature of 2.0 format files, does a deep extension mean there is exactly one deep image, or no non-deep images, or that the data is "primarily" deep data? Should stereo deep images be .dsxr? What should an application reading a 2.0 file expect differently if the file has a deep extension? So now there will be three extensions for the same file format that all just serve as hints, but that make no difference to reader programs? Of course not all readers will be able to process deep data, but they still need to be able to handle the fact that they could get a .exr file containing deep images that they need to ignore. I like .sxr, but it works because it has a much more narrow definition of what is contained in the file.

I say welcome to the new world of 2.0 where .exr might mean anything, and put whatever info you want about the contents into the file name or directory name. :) Soon enough (if not already at some places) most data except at the very end of the pipe is going to be deep anyway, so if a new extension is used then practically nothing will be called .exr, which seems like it kind of defeats the purpose.

-Jonathan


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]