I think that PR is against master, though if you download it as a patch I would expect it to be applicable to the head of 1.6.
You should also be able to pull it into your master and then cherry-pick it into your 1.6 if that's easier for you to test. In any case, if it's approved, I will certainly merge it (or the equivalent) into both branches. > On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks much Larry, I'll give it a whirl. just out of curiousity, is that > commit for the 1.6 branch(es) or just master (which I guess is 1.7 at this > point)? I haven't been following the tags super close. I can certainly make > it work either way just wondered. > > Cheers, > > ~Andrew > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > OK, here is the proposed implementation: > https://github.com/OpenImageIO/oiio/pull/1362 > <https://github.com/OpenImageIO/oiio/pull/1362> > > >> On Feb 19, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hmm, good point, forgot about this. uint8 would be weird default on the >> python side. >> >> I like the oiio.FLOAT default idea better than the others as it will >> probably be more obvious what happened in their code should they happen to >> be using the read without supplying the format. >> >> It may break things but it breaks them the "least" in my opinion. Requiring >> the argument for every call is probably better long term but we're already >> changing behavior with supplying oiio.UNKNOWN so we should probably confine >> the real changes to those folks as best we can. >> >> Just my two cents. >> >> TL;DR: I'd go with oiio.FLOAT as a default >> >> ~Andrew >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> OK, just one more wrinkle. >> >> For a script that passes no format at all, the default is/was UNKNOWN, but >> that changes behavior. Before, it would return an array based on spec.format >> (the "widest" format of the channels). But now, it means to return a uint8 >> blob of packed native data, which is "advanced usage" for sure, and possibly >> not a good default. >> >> I propose changing the parameter default to oiio.FLOAT, which gives a >> sensible behavior for apps as well as making it very likely that old apps >> will continue to work in some kind of sensible way. >> >> Another way to go is to require the argument to be passed. That will break >> old Python scripts, but will force everything to be explicit moving forward. >> >> >> >>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Two thumbs up! (packed into one float thumbs up) >>> >>> HP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Gartner <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Yep, I'm good with that. >>> >>> Thanks again for teasing this apart Larry/HP >>> >>> ~Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> OK, that sounds reasonable. So we have: >>> >>> * If you ask for a specific type, convert and return an array of that type. >>> If you ask for HALF, the half bit pattern gets returned in a uint16 array, >>> since there is no true half type. >>> >>> * If you ask for UNKNOWN (explicitly "give me raw data"), it returns an >>> array of unsigned chars containing the raw data. >>> >>> Everybody can live with that? >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Of the options "pass half values disguised as an unsigned short array" >>>> feels the cleanest to me. You keep the right number of components in the >>>> array, if you have any checks for that, and the data to be convert to >>>> halfs is already grouped appropriately. >>>> >>>> Converting to halfs is also a one line call to numpy: >>>> np.frombuffer(np.getbuffer(np.uint16(uint16Value)), dtype=np.float16) >>>> Ex. https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/clf/Common.py#L92 >>>> <https://github.com/hpd/CLF/blob/master/python/aces/clf/Common.py#L92> >>>> >>>> HP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> In C++, asking for UNKNOWN just copies the native format data and leaves >>>> it for you to sort out. But to C++, a buffer is a buffer, you're passing >>>> it a void* in any case. >>>> >>>> In Python, it's dynamic typing, so read_image RETURNS an array, and it has >>>> to be an array of some type. Which type? >>>> >>>> I think we all are coming to agree that if you ask for UNKNOWN, probably >>>> the most analogous thing (to C++) is to return an unsigned char array, >>>> filled with the raw data, and leave you to sort it out. That's as close to >>>> "untyped raw buffer" as we can get. >>>> >>>> If you *ask* for HALF, it's nonsensical, because you can't make an actual >>>> half array in Python. You could promote and convert it to float. Or you >>>> could return raw values in unsigned char array (like if you'd passed >>>> UNKNOWN). Or, yeah, another possibility is to pass half values disguised >>>> as an unsigned short array? >>>> >>>> I'm not super fond of the last choice. >>>> >>>> Right now, we do something stupider than any of those -- which is to pack >>>> raw half values into a buffer, but the buffer advertises itself as being a >>>> float array. That clearly needs to change. It was never intentional; I >>>> just never thought carefully about that case because I never imagined >>>> anybody asking for a type that didn't exist in Python. >>>> >>>> So, current proposal on the table: >>>> >>>> * If you ask for a type that can be a valid Python array type, convert and >>>> return an array of that type. >>>> >>>> * If you ask for UNKNOWN (explicitly "give me raw data") or HALF >>>> (implicitly so, because it doesn't exist in Python), it returns an array >>>> of unsigned chars containing the raw data. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 18, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Haarm-Pieter Duiker <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Returning a series of unsigned 16 bit ints for a call with the type half >>>>> feels like a nice middle ground. The consumer will have to know that >>>>> halfs aren't natively supported in Python, and how to convert from >>>>> unsigned short to half, but that doesn't feel like a large burden. >>>>> >>>>> I can't speak to the expected behavior of the UNKNOWN in Python. I >>>>> haven't used that path in Python or C++. >>>>> >>>>> HP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Larry Gritz <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> 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] >>>>>> <mailto:[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] <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> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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> >>> >>> -- >>> 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> > > -- > 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
