Sorry, no benchmarks yet. I started making a doc about exr to put up on nukepedia that one day I will finish.
Ryan: are the exr files scanline or tile exr's? -deke On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 14:18, Dan Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Deke, > > Could you elaborate on the last paragraph. Given a multi chan EXR. Are > there bench mark tests that have been done to track optimal setups in comps? > Basically, better to do this than that. I know there are a multitude of > scenarios you have to consider but there are some tips users can supply > based on their experiences. > > I'd say submitting them in an email thread is probably the best approach or > the Foundry can compile and validate the submitted tips. They're not busy > working on anything at the moment, right?! ;-) > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Deke Kincaid <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Exr files are interleaved. So when you look at some scanlines, you need >> to read in every single channel in the EXR from those scanlines even if you >> only need one of them. So if you have a multichannel file with 40 channels >> but you only use rgba and one or two matte channels, then your going to >> incur a large hit. >> >> Another thing is it sounds like you are shuffling out the channels to the >> rgb before you merge them. This also does quite a hit in speed. It is far >> faster to merge and pick the channels you need rather then shuffling them >> out first. >> >> -deke >> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:37, Ryan O'Phelan <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Recently I've been trying to evaluate the load of nuke renders on our >>> file server, and ran a few tests comparing multichannel vs. non-multichannel >>> reads, and my initial test results were opposite of what I was expecting. >>> My tests showed that multichannel comps rendered about 20-25% slower, and >>> made about 25% more load on the server in terms of disk reads. I was >>> expecting the opposite, since there are fewer files being called with >>> multichannel reads. >>> >>> For what it's worth, all reads were zip1 compressed EXRs and I tested >>> real comps, as well as extremely simplified comps where the multichannel >>> files were branched and then fed into a contact sheet. I was monitoring >>> performance using the performance monitor on the file server using only 20 >>> nodes and with almost nobody using the server. >>> >>> Can anyone explain this? Or am I wrong and need to redo these tests? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nuke-users mailing list >>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing list >> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
