Did you check network and render farm memory usage with QT vs DPX? I would think DPX put a lot less load on the nework. Also why dpx. exr with zips is smaller and at least as fast which in turn would lessen your network load during render or working even more. No? yes? am I still asleep trying to remember how plus works after 20 year of doing this?
Randy S. Little http://www.rslittle.com/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, John Coldrick <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey all - we typically pull our plates from the above files and output to > dpx files for compositing. Someone here has been pushing for just using > the original quicktimes directly in comp(we've gotten a fix from the latest > release notes that addresses a subtle colour shift between nuke and > compressor). Apart from the arguments about speed(we found in the end it's > actually pretty similar) and workflow(head in and out and the rest we can > probably handle), it struck me that stability is a potential problem. > We're running windows here(win7 64 bit), and I was able to make some > quicktime crashes pretty trivially with Nuke 6.3v4 through 7.0v8(same > triggers, same crash, which suggests the issue is with quicktime). > > I'm arguing no for stability reasons, but I can see the benefits if it > works - just wondering if anyone here has done this with any success or > wildly wave their hands saying 'nooooooo!'. > > Thanks in advance > > J.C. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
