I don't have especially strong feelings about this one way or the other. Just returning a raw data byte array matches the C++ behavior more closely, no argument there.
On the "con" side, perhaps I was thinking of compatibility? We're really talking about changing the meaning of oiio.UNKNOWN from "use spec.format" to "return raw data", which differ in the case of mixed channel types. Are there Python programs out there that pass UNKNOWN (or pass nothing, defaulting to UNKNOWN) and rely on getting the right kind of array back that matches spec.format? > On Feb 18, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Second, I could collapse 2a and 2b, and just say that if you ask for > UNKNOWN, you get an array of uint8 back with the native raw data" > > Just out of curiosity, what are the drawbacks to doing this? I admit I like > having some way of getting at the raw data at any time (hence my original > method of exposing the native calls). That allowed me to check my imagespec > and regardless of whether I had a mixed format image or all half data I could > get everything in one read call. Granted I'm used to keeping track of and > manipulating the strides of those arrays in bytes just out of old habit (and > C++ usage) so maybe I'm the minority opinion. > > Even so, your current thinking still works if that's where the consensus is > I'm happy to use it as such. > > Thanks again > > ~Andrew > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I think that the only format that we can encounter as pixel data, which does > not exist in Python arrays, is 'half'. > > So let me rephrase my current thinking: > > 1. If you ask for a specific type (except HALF), you'll get a Python array of > that type holding the converted values. > > 2. Otherwise (i.e., you ask for UNKNOWN or HALF), you will get the native > (raw) data. > (a) If all channels are the same data type and it's anything but half, you'll > get the data as a Python array of that type. > (b) Otherwise (half, or mixed channel types), you'll get the data as a Python > array of unsigned bytes. > > Note that (1) is the easy case to deal with: ask for the type you want, let > it do the conversion. If you go for option (2) by asking for native data, you > get a blob and it's up to you to figure out what to do with it. > > There are two other choices we could make. I'm not inclined to at the moment, > but would be happy to do so if people think it's helpful. First, if you ask > for HALF, I could have it return float. Second, I could collapse 2a and 2b, > and just say that if you ask for UNKNOWN, you get an array of uint8 back with > the native raw data, even if it happened to be all channels of the same type, > a type that you could have made into a Python array of the right type. > > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 11:16 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Picking this up a little later in the day. Sorry about that. Adding quotes >> from earlier in the thread just so it's clear what I'm responding to. >> >> The current status: >> " >> If you read_image(oiio.FLOAT) of a half image (on disk), you get floats back? >> " >> Yes. >> >> " >> But if you read_image(oiio.HALF) of a half image, you get what appears to be >> an array of floats, but they are actually packed half values? >> " >> Yes. >> >> The proposal: >> " >> 1. If you ask for a (non-UNKNOWN) format that exists in Python, it converts >> to and returns an array of that format. >> " >> This is the current behavior, no? >> >> " >> 2. If you ask for UNKNOWN, or a format that doesn't exist, it returns the >> raw data in an unsigned char array. >> " >> It feels like this is two proposals (Trying not to clash with your earlier >> 2a and 2b): >> 2c. If you ask for UNKNOWN, return raw data in an unsigned char array >> 2d. If you ask for a format that doesn't exist, return raw data in an >> unsigned char array >> >> 2c. feels right. It should work for the case of typical RGB or RGBA images >> but also for multi-layer EXRs. The consumer can convert the channels to >> their intended types using methods from the ImageSpec. I'd suggest that >> asking for UNKNOWN lead unequivocally to a raw unsigned char array. >> Supporting the special cases described in the 2a and 2b listed earlier would >> require additional logic on the consuming code side to account for those >> cases. Feels like a recipe for lots of brittle special case logic. >> >> 2d. is less clear. How is the change in behavior from returning real values >> for known types to returning raw char array data for unknown types signaled >> to the consumer? Is this still something that programmers have to just know >> a priori? How is this different from the current behavior? >> >> I suppose the list of types known to OIIO but not Python is finite and >> likely to shrink over time. Having special cases like we have in that >> example code, isn't such a big deal in the mean time, but then that's just >> saying the the current behavior is fine. >> >> Hope that's helpful in some way. Aside from agreeing that adding an UNKNOWN >> option is a good idea, we're still left without a good way to consume half >> data without accounting for it explicitly. >> >> HP >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> That would certainly take care of things for me. Hopefully not too much of >> an impact on others as well. >> >> ~Andrew >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> So I'm proposing: >> >> 1. If you ask for a (non-UNKNOWN) format that exists in Python, it converts >> to and returns an array of that format. >> >> 2. If you ask for UNKNOWN, or a format that doesn't exist, it returns the >> raw data in an unsigned char array. >> >> >> There is a variation: >> >> 2a. If you ask for UNKNOWN, and all channels are the same format and it's a >> type that exists in Python, return that type. >> 2b. If you ask for UNKNOWN and it's a "mixed type" file, or a single type >> but one that doesn't exist in Python, or the type you ask for doesn't exist >> in Python, return raw data packed into an unsigned char array. >> >> >> >>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Yea the C++ implementation works well with oiio.UNKNOWN, I kinda miss that >>> in the python side to be honest. Right now it looks like things revert back >>> to spec.format if oiio.UNKNOWN is supplied to read_scanlines, that can be >>> problematic if you have multiple formats in a single image so I've avoided >>> it. >>> >>> @Larry, to you question about returning an unsigned char array, I like the >>> idea on principle in that it preserves the decoupling as you said. I'm >>> wondering if there would be any weirdness if you had to grab multiple >>> channels of an image that had different data types one of which isn't >>> representable in python? Would it default to just unsigned char yet again >>> in that case? >>> >>> @Haarm: interesting, I didn't realize they were concatenated/packed like >>> that! I just saw the 'f' in the python array and assumed I was seeing >>> promoted values :) I'm still scratching my head over the multiple format >>> reads though, same as for Larry's idea. >>> >>> Thanks for the replies, Cheers, >>> >>> ~Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> If you're up for using numpy, this will get you the half float values >>> without too much extra work: >>> oiioFloats = inputImage.read_image(oiio.HALF) >>> oiioHalfs = np.frombuffer(np.getbuffer(np.float32(oiioFloats)), >>> dtype=np.float16) >>> >>> One note, the current OIIO Python implementation doesn't promote the halfs >>> to float on read. The 'float' values in the returned buffer are actually >>> each two concatenated half values, and the float buffer will have half as >>> many entries as you would expect. >>> >>> Example usage for reading here: >>> https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L126 >>> >>> <https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L126> >>> and the reverse for writing: >>> https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L193 >>> >>> <https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/filterImageWithCLF.py#L193> >>> >>> HP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> In C++, you can just call read_scanlines and pass format=UNKNOWN to get >>> back the raw data in its original format. >>> >>> The problem is that in Python, there is no 'half' so it's not quite sure >>> what to return. >>> >>> I kinda like the decoupling of the raw reads (read_native_*) which are the >>> part overloaded by the individual format readers, from the app-callable >>> read_*. So perhaps rather than exposing read_native_*, we should just >>> modify the Python bindings for read_* to notice that if the native raw data >>> is not a type representable in Python, to return it as an unsigned >>> character array? >>> >>> >>> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected] >>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey all, >>> > >>> > Apologies if this has come up before, but I'm curious if anyone had >>> > considered exposing ImageInput.read_native_scanlines() on the python side >>> > before. The reason I ask is mainly because the half datatype doesn't >>> > exist in the native python array class which OIIO uses for python reads. >>> > Currently the python array will punt and for anything to float (which I'd >>> > rather avoid). >>> > >>> > I had put together an implementation in OIIO 1.5 that simply took the >>> > pixel size as a parameter and exposed read_native_scanlines that way and >>> > that allowed me to get the right data properly into either numpy or a raw >>> > char python array. However, I'd rather not be forked off like that as >>> > it's a headache trying to remain current with the mainline, plus others >>> > may find it useful. >>> > >>> > Does anyone think exposing the function in general makes sense? I'm happy >>> > to send the implementation if anyone cares to see it as well. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > ~Andrew >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Larry Gritz >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Oiio-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >>> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> >> >> -- >> Larry Gritz >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oiio-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oiio-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oiio-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org >> <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> > > -- > Larry Gritz > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oiio-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org > <http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > Oiio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org -- Larry Gritz [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Oiio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
