Thanks for that info Peter. We've been considering .zxr (preferred) or .dxr to keep in line with the .*xr convention (.exr, and .sxr for stereo). Keeping the .*xr would be helpful in maintaining consistency in identifying OpenEXR files, as compared to other deep formats which will also be floating around our pipeline (e.g. .dtex or .dshd from PRMan).
Do either .zxr or .dxr seem like a good call? Cheers, Ollie Harding Double Negative Visual Effects ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Hillman" <pet...@wetafx.co.nz> > To: openexr-devel@nongnu.org > Sent: Wednesday, 18 July, 2012 8:23:00 AM > Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension? > I think it does make sense to use a different extension to > distinguish > deep images from normal EXR images to trigger different actions on > reading and writing the data. > We'll stick with "odz" (OpenEXR-DeepZ) for deep exrs for the time > being, > as our pipeline has been doing that for a few years now, but we could > be > persuaded to shift to another convention! > Peter > On 17/07/12 21:57, Ollie Harding wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We're putting together our deep compositing pipeline using OpenEXR > > v2, > > and need to settle on a file extension for our deep files. Are > > there > > any established extensions out there which would be worth us > > adopting? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ollie Harding > > Double Negative Visual Effects > > > _______________________________________________ > Openexr-devel mailing list > Openexr-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
_______________________________________________ Openexr-devel mailing list Openexr-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
