Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension?

[Piotr Stanczyk]

Certainly, the .exr extension is a valid one. The v2.0 library will read 1.x 
images just fine; and if only the 1.x subset of features is used then the files 
written will be identical to those written by 1.7.
It is worth bearing in mind that  v2 is capable of writing multi-part images; 
in such scenarios the first part may be a 'flat' image and the subsequent one a 
'deep' image.

Having said that, I'd like to echo Peter's sentiment of having an 
additional/separate extension that could be easily recognized as a deep exr 
file.
Given that the stereo feature set went for a .sxr or .mxr for stereo / 
multi-view images .dxr / .dexr is perfectly appropriate for the deep data 
images. (The chances for confusion with director are quite minimal and at some 
stage extension collision will be hard to avoid.)



Piotr



________________________________________
From: address@hidden address@hidden on behalf of David Aguilar address@hidden
Sent: 18 July 2012 11:03
To: Christian Bloch
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Openexr-devel] Established deep data file extension?

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Christian Bloch <address@hidden> wrote:
> Well, I would think the diaspora spread is rather unofficial and hasn't gone 
> too far, and Weta's in-house usage can still be considered proprietary. So at 
> this very moment the legacy support is still restricted to a very limited 
> group.
>
> Consider this the last chance of altering the file extension to something 
> memorizable. In a year's time that chance is gone. I do think sticking to the 
> *xr template makes a whole lot more sense in the long run. Chances of 
> confusion with director files is rather minimal, so even .dxr would be 
> appropriate.

foo.dexr

MS-DOS is dead as disco so hopefully we aren't limited to 7.3 filenames.
--
David

_______________________________________________
Openexr-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel