Do you think it might be useful to get in contact with the ISO committee?
For all practical purposes, the standard is "wrong" and should be updated.
I think this is the committee in question:
> My guess is Photoshop was the first tool to consider this metadata and got it
> wrong, and everyone else is copying Photoshop.
Yeah, that seems very likely to me.
And here we are, about to take the only identified instance of software that
got it right, and break it in order to be compatible
On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbs wrote:
>
> When does Software Archeologist become a well-paid job? That would be an
> interesting thing to be called out of retirement to do some day. :)
I think those retired COBOL programmers charged a fortune to clean up the
That code listing doesn't appear to examine the cinfo.density_unit field at all.
Also, nothing in the JFIF spec indicates that if density_unit is 0, the density
fields suddenly switch to mean the inverse. As far as I can tell, it just means
that the units are unknown/unspecified, but it's still
Sent on the go...
> On 19 May 2016, at 22:48, Jonathan Egstad wrote:
>
>
> Nuke's JPEG reader/writer is interpreting the xdensity and ydensity fields as
> sizes, not densities.
But does it not depend on the other header field if the units header has a non
zero value
Yeah, yeah, I know. :-)
I just want somebody to say, "you're late to the game, but the rest of us
decided a long time ago to stick together and do the opposite of what the JFIF
standard says, trust us you won't break anything."
> On May 19, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Egstad
The industry did not evolve in a scientifically rigorous way. ;)
On May 19, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Larry Gritz wrote:
Yeah, I'm fine with whatever they want to call it internally.
OpenEXR/ImfStandardAttributes.h agrees with me:
//
// xDensity -- horizontal output density, in
On May 19, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Kevin Wheatley wrote:
>
> https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/developers/100/ndkreference/examples/jpegReader.cpp
>
> Has the reader code ...
>
> In the constructor there is bits dealing with the density values.
>
> Kevin
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/developers/100/ndkreference/examples/jpegReader.cpp
Has the reader code ...
In the constructor there is bits dealing with the density values.
Kevin
Sent on the go...
> On 19 May 2016, at 22:21, Jonathan Egstad wrote:
>
> If
If it makes you feel any better, the Nuke notation is based on film terminology
where the anamorphic value refers to the projector lens stretch, not the camera
lens squeeze. i.e. 2.0 means x2 in display width.
Typically anamorphic is not referred to as 0.5...
-j
On May 19, 2016, at 1:34 PM,
No, but it doesn't agree after all!
When I instruct oiiotool to write an OpenEXR with pixel aspect of 2.0, Nuke
correctly displays it as wide.
Same with TIFF.
But when oiiotool writes a JPEG with pixel aspect of 2.0 -- I *THINK* I'm doing
it right, there is no JPEG aspect field, in infers it
(typing on a small iphone atm so I'll check out the thread in more detail later)
You're correct about what Nuke's format.pixel_aspect() is - it's the correction
factor from pixel-storage to real-world coordinates.
So a Nuke format with pa 2.0 is typically an anamorphic image where the stored
Hey Larry,
I'm one of the original Nuke authors but not with the Foundry - if you need
help with general plugin coding questions maybe I can help.
Cheers,
-j
On May 18, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Larry Gritz wrote:
Anybody from the Foundry who works on Nuke reading this?
--
Anybody from the Foundry who works on Nuke reading this?
--
Larry Gritz
l...@larrygritz.com
___
Oiio-dev mailing list
Oiio-dev@lists.openimageio.org
http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
14 matches
Mail list logo