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
From: "Peter Hillman" <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
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
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel