Aha, I misunderstood. I could have sworn you guys were saying that there was a
bug in EXR 2.0 tiled deep output, and that was why you couldn't output directly
as OpenEXR. (I already was aware of Nuke's unfortunate phobia of tiled input,
that's not EXR 2.0 specific.)
So in any case, now I know that it's safe to output tiled deep OpenEXR, even if
it later has to be converted to scanline for Nuke. Sorry for the confusion.
-- lg
On Aug 4, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Christopher Horvath wrote:
> Yeah - it's that Nuke's reader currently only supports scanline EXR 2.0
> (which is better for Nuke anyway). It's advantageous to convert from dtex to
> EXR2 because of other cost savings anyway, and the conversion from the
> intrinsically bucket-oriented dtex to a Nuke-friendly scanline approach
> speeds things up even more.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Larry Gritz <l...@larrygritz.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's my misunderstanding, but at the "deep comp BOF" (which I really
> thought you were at) people were saying that they had to output dtex and then
> separately convert to OpenEXR 2.0, because of OpenEXR bugs related to
> outputting deep tiles.
>
> Did I misunderstand the situation?
>
>
>
--
Larry Gritz
l...@larrygritz.com
_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
Openexr-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel
