So this depends on a few factors. A few questions first. Where are the files located(local raid, local disk, or server)? Which version of nuke? How many layers/channels are you writing? If you are using Nuke 8 can the file lack backward compatibility (multipart channels written for exr 2.0).
The reason I ask is on a network Zip1 compressed tend to be best and a good mix of compression and speed. Locally on a fast fusion io then uncompressed is actually faster though they take up a lot more space. If you use lots of channels in a single file then writing the layers as separate parts are suggested or if the file is all mattes then write each channel as a separate part. -- Deke Kincaid Creative Specialist The Foundry Skype: dekekincaid Tel: (310) 399 4555 - Mobile: (310) 883 4313 Web: www.thefoundry.co.uk Email: [email protected] On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Dorian Fevrier < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi (again for some of you!) Nuke community! > > I try to find the faster EXR formats for the exr Nuke reader in a case of > a full CG compositing and it's quite hard to get valid informations. > > Could someone confirm me this: > > One channel per file (RGBA) > Compression: Imf::NO_COMPRESSION > Order: Imf::INCREASING_Y (I've never been sure about this) > A dataWindow well defined. > > Have I miss something? > > Big thanks in advance and Hello again! > > Regards, > > Dorian > > _______________________________________________ > 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
