But am i incorrect in the assumption that of all those formats Pic is
the only format the Softimage developers have full control over? IE they
have the ability to modify its structure at will? Doesn't that classify
it as native to Softimage?
I realize that when the image library .so was made available what...back
in 99?...we were able to access other formats and that in XSI it really
is more transparent than in SI3D.
But the question really wasn't.... why did Softimage decide to label
this very standard run length encoded rgb image which isn't all that
much different than .rgb or .sgi as the Softimage default. The question
is what advantages do these other formats, with all their risky
"extras", provide the user to warrant the risk?
So far I've gotten 16-bit support as a significant reason. Everything
else is about ease of use in the browser, thumbnails etc, or photoshop
hates pic. Those aren't compelling reasons to offset the risks. When PSD
files first became available to use in Softimage I gave up trying to get
these things to work reliably all the time. Same for tiff. Lzw or not
lzw, that is the question. How does all that affect things if you plan
on using mipmaps? There is too much extra stuff in these high order
image formats. Does any of this extra "stuff" provide an advantage that
outweighs the risk that an image might load, acts like its gonna work
fine, but decides to crap out at 3am when just the right(or wrong) scene
conditions occur.
I can think of no time when pic ever failed me in Soft. Bear in mind
this is a philosophy that I developed over decades from experiences on
SGI and with other apps than just Softimage. I decided somewhere along
the way that sleep was more important than the fact that I could use a
PSD file. In Soft I only use pic. In Maya i use iff and converted to
mipmaps, especially on large stuff. So granted I am working from a
legacy mindset. However, I kinda would like to know has something
changed dramatically enough to make this level of risk more worthwhile,
even though I seriously doubt that stability from these non default
formats has improved any. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.
Joey Ponthieux
LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)
Mymic Technical Services
NASA Langley Research Center
____________________________________________________________
Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and
do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
On 11/16/2012 4:20 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote:
XSI really doesn't have a "Native format", it just has a default value
in the rendering ppg .pic is just a file format like the others; there
is no additional conversion when using the other format in Softimage,
or loss of meta-data. All the image file formats in softimage have
the API. Plus, if you're rendering with mental ray.. .it's just one of
the format mental ray supports.
It was kind of native in Softimage|3D's renderer. In XSI, .pic is just
the file format default due to inertia and fear of change.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Ponthieux, Joey <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I guess what I am really curious about is why there is so much
interest by folks in using these non-native formats which are
filled with all sorts of extra stuff such as layers, channels,
paths, metadata, and potentially incompatible compressions
schemes. Do they provide seriously important value over the
native formats(pic in Softimage, iff in Maya) to warrant the risks?
