Date   

Re: AllocationVars with GPU path and 1d LUT

Patrick Hodoul <patric...@...>
 

Having a realistic timeline for OCIO v2 is quite challenging for now.

Patrick.


On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 1:27:10 PM UTC-4, Simon Therriault wrote:
Thanks for the confirmation Patrick!

Also, in latest release, 1.1, I can see the same kind of behaviour. Let's say for the Nuke-default configuration, if I go from linear to SRGB, the resulting 3d LUT doesn't have any negative values. So, if I input Marci's image, all the blacks, which are negative, will be "clamped" to a pixel value higher than 0. I don't expect bug fixes for it but just looking for a confirmation that it is expected in this version.

Also, do you have any timeline for the official 2.0 release?

Thanks again for your help!

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:28:46 PM UTC-4, Patrick Hodoul wrote:

Here is the github issue: #622


On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-4, Patrick Hodoul wrote:

Hi Simon,

 

Thanks for taking the time to use/test the master branch, and sorry for the delay to answer.

 

I did some investigations, and you found a 'glitch'  :-)  in the master branch (i.e. OCIO v2).

Following your use case and using the latest commit from the master branch, the inv LUT 1D is clamping to [0, 1]. Even if we are currently revisiting all the Ops to comply with the CLF requirements, I will still log an issue in github to keep track of the use case (as the corresponding unit test is clearly missing).

 

Regards,

Patrick.


On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:19:53 PM UTC-4, Simon Therriault wrote:
Hi,

I've been playing around an integration of OCIO using the GPU path (latest code version build 50) and things are going relatively smoothly. There's one problem that I still have though and it's when I compare conversion result to a conversion made in Nuke. 

I'm using the Nuke-Default configuration and playing with Linear to SRGB conversion.

colorspaces:
  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: linear
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Scene-linear, high dynamic range. Used for rendering and compositing.
    isdata: false
    allocation: lg2
    allocationvars: [-15, 6]

  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: sRGB
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Standard RGB Display Space
    isdata: false
    allocation: uniform
    allocationvars: [-0.125, 1.125]
    to_reference: !<FileTransform> {src: srgb.spi1d, interpolation: linear}

My source image is Marci_512_linear.exr that comes from the reference images. I have applied a Linear to SRGB transform in Nuke and saved an EXR 32 bits uncompressed out of it.

On my side, I have applied the same transform but using the GPU path.

In the hair region, where pixels are well over 1.0, I don't have the same result. My output has clipped to 1.0 and the one from Nuke clipped to 1.25. Samething happens for pixels below 0.0. My result has clipped to 0.0 but in Nuke's output, I can see sub 0.0 values. It looks like the allocation vars aren't taken into account or something.

My shader output looks like this and the language used is HLSL_DX11 :

Texture2D ociolut1d_0;
SamplerState ociolut1d_0Sampler;

float2 ociolut1d_0_computePos(float f)
{
  float dep = min(f, 1.0) * 65535.;
  float2 retVal;
  retVal.y = float(int(dep / 4095.));
  retVal.x = dep - retVal.y * 4095.;
  retVal.x = (retVal.x + 0.5) / 4096.;
  retVal.y = (retVal.y + 0.5) / 17.;
  return retVal;
}



float4 OCIOConvert(in float4 inPixel)
{
  float4 outColor = inPixel;
  outColor.r = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.r)).r;
  outColor.g = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.g)).g;
  outColor.b = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.b)).b;

  return outColor;
}

If anyone ever had that issue, I'll be happy to hear it out :)


Thanks!


Re: AllocationVars with GPU path and 1d LUT

Simon Therriault <mos...@...>
 

Thanks for the confirmation Patrick!

Also, in latest release, 1.1, I can see the same kind of behaviour. Let's say for the Nuke-default configuration, if I go from linear to SRGB, the resulting 3d LUT doesn't have any negative values. So, if I input Marci's image, all the blacks, which are negative, will be "clamped" to a pixel value higher than 0. I don't expect bug fixes for it but just looking for a confirmation that it is expected in this version.

Also, do you have any timeline for the official 2.0 release?

Thanks again for your help!

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:28:46 PM UTC-4, Patrick Hodoul wrote:

Here is the github issue: #622


On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-4, Patrick Hodoul wrote:

Hi Simon,

 

Thanks for taking the time to use/test the master branch, and sorry for the delay to answer.

 

I did some investigations, and you found a 'glitch'  :-)  in the master branch (i.e. OCIO v2).

Following your use case and using the latest commit from the master branch, the inv LUT 1D is clamping to [0, 1]. Even if we are currently revisiting all the Ops to comply with the CLF requirements, I will still log an issue in github to keep track of the use case (as the corresponding unit test is clearly missing).

 

Regards,

Patrick.


On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:19:53 PM UTC-4, Simon Therriault wrote:
Hi,

I've been playing around an integration of OCIO using the GPU path (latest code version build 50) and things are going relatively smoothly. There's one problem that I still have though and it's when I compare conversion result to a conversion made in Nuke. 

I'm using the Nuke-Default configuration and playing with Linear to SRGB conversion.

colorspaces:
  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: linear
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Scene-linear, high dynamic range. Used for rendering and compositing.
    isdata: false
    allocation: lg2
    allocationvars: [-15, 6]

  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: sRGB
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Standard RGB Display Space
    isdata: false
    allocation: uniform
    allocationvars: [-0.125, 1.125]
    to_reference: !<FileTransform> {src: srgb.spi1d, interpolation: linear}

My source image is Marci_512_linear.exr that comes from the reference images. I have applied a Linear to SRGB transform in Nuke and saved an EXR 32 bits uncompressed out of it.

On my side, I have applied the same transform but using the GPU path.

In the hair region, where pixels are well over 1.0, I don't have the same result. My output has clipped to 1.0 and the one from Nuke clipped to 1.25. Samething happens for pixels below 0.0. My result has clipped to 0.0 but in Nuke's output, I can see sub 0.0 values. It looks like the allocation vars aren't taken into account or something.

My shader output looks like this and the language used is HLSL_DX11 :

Texture2D ociolut1d_0;
SamplerState ociolut1d_0Sampler;

float2 ociolut1d_0_computePos(float f)
{
  float dep = min(f, 1.0) * 65535.;
  float2 retVal;
  retVal.y = float(int(dep / 4095.));
  retVal.x = dep - retVal.y * 4095.;
  retVal.x = (retVal.x + 0.5) / 4096.;
  retVal.y = (retVal.y + 0.5) / 17.;
  return retVal;
}



float4 OCIOConvert(in float4 inPixel)
{
  float4 outColor = inPixel;
  outColor.r = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.r)).r;
  outColor.g = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.g)).g;
  outColor.b = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.b)).b;

  return outColor;
}

If anyone ever had that issue, I'll be happy to hear it out :)


Thanks!


Re: AllocationVars with GPU path and 1d LUT

Patrick Hodoul <patric...@...>
 


Here is the github issue: #622


On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 12:21:51 PM UTC-4, Patrick Hodoul wrote:

Hi Simon,

 

Thanks for taking the time to use/test the master branch, and sorry for the delay to answer.

 

I did some investigations, and you found a 'glitch'  :-)  in the master branch (i.e. OCIO v2).

Following your use case and using the latest commit from the master branch, the inv LUT 1D is clamping to [0, 1]. Even if we are currently revisiting all the Ops to comply with the CLF requirements, I will still log an issue in github to keep track of the use case (as the corresponding unit test is clearly missing).

 

Regards,

Patrick.


On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:19:53 PM UTC-4, Simon Therriault wrote:
Hi,

I've been playing around an integration of OCIO using the GPU path (latest code version build 50) and things are going relatively smoothly. There's one problem that I still have though and it's when I compare conversion result to a conversion made in Nuke. 

I'm using the Nuke-Default configuration and playing with Linear to SRGB conversion.

colorspaces:
  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: linear
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Scene-linear, high dynamic range. Used for rendering and compositing.
    isdata: false
    allocation: lg2
    allocationvars: [-15, 6]

  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: sRGB
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Standard RGB Display Space
    isdata: false
    allocation: uniform
    allocationvars: [-0.125, 1.125]
    to_reference: !<FileTransform> {src: srgb.spi1d, interpolation: linear}

My source image is Marci_512_linear.exr that comes from the reference images. I have applied a Linear to SRGB transform in Nuke and saved an EXR 32 bits uncompressed out of it.

On my side, I have applied the same transform but using the GPU path.

In the hair region, where pixels are well over 1.0, I don't have the same result. My output has clipped to 1.0 and the one from Nuke clipped to 1.25. Samething happens for pixels below 0.0. My result has clipped to 0.0 but in Nuke's output, I can see sub 0.0 values. It looks like the allocation vars aren't taken into account or something.

My shader output looks like this and the language used is HLSL_DX11 :

Texture2D ociolut1d_0;
SamplerState ociolut1d_0Sampler;

float2 ociolut1d_0_computePos(float f)
{
  float dep = min(f, 1.0) * 65535.;
  float2 retVal;
  retVal.y = float(int(dep / 4095.));
  retVal.x = dep - retVal.y * 4095.;
  retVal.x = (retVal.x + 0.5) / 4096.;
  retVal.y = (retVal.y + 0.5) / 17.;
  return retVal;
}



float4 OCIOConvert(in float4 inPixel)
{
  float4 outColor = inPixel;
  outColor.r = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.r)).r;
  outColor.g = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.g)).g;
  outColor.b = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.b)).b;

  return outColor;
}

If anyone ever had that issue, I'll be happy to hear it out :)


Thanks!


Re: AllocationVars with GPU path and 1d LUT

Patrick Hodoul <patric...@...>
 

Hi Simon,

 

Thanks for taking the time to use/test the master branch, and sorry for the delay to answer.

 

I did some investigations, and you found a 'glitch'  :-)  in the master branch (i.e. OCIO v2).

Following your use case and using the latest commit from the master branch, the inv LUT 1D is clamping to [0, 1]. Even if we are currently revisiting all the Ops to comply with the CLF requirements, I will still log an issue in github to keep track of the use case (as the corresponding unit test is clearly missing).

 

Regards,

Patrick.


On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 8:19:53 PM UTC-4, Simon Therriault wrote:
Hi,

I've been playing around an integration of OCIO using the GPU path (latest code version build 50) and things are going relatively smoothly. There's one problem that I still have though and it's when I compare conversion result to a conversion made in Nuke. 

I'm using the Nuke-Default configuration and playing with Linear to SRGB conversion.

colorspaces:
  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: linear
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Scene-linear, high dynamic range. Used for rendering and compositing.
    isdata: false
    allocation: lg2
    allocationvars: [-15, 6]

  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: sRGB
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Standard RGB Display Space
    isdata: false
    allocation: uniform
    allocationvars: [-0.125, 1.125]
    to_reference: !<FileTransform> {src: srgb.spi1d, interpolation: linear}

My source image is Marci_512_linear.exr that comes from the reference images. I have applied a Linear to SRGB transform in Nuke and saved an EXR 32 bits uncompressed out of it.

On my side, I have applied the same transform but using the GPU path.

In the hair region, where pixels are well over 1.0, I don't have the same result. My output has clipped to 1.0 and the one from Nuke clipped to 1.25. Samething happens for pixels below 0.0. My result has clipped to 0.0 but in Nuke's output, I can see sub 0.0 values. It looks like the allocation vars aren't taken into account or something.

My shader output looks like this and the language used is HLSL_DX11 :

Texture2D ociolut1d_0;
SamplerState ociolut1d_0Sampler;

float2 ociolut1d_0_computePos(float f)
{
  float dep = min(f, 1.0) * 65535.;
  float2 retVal;
  retVal.y = float(int(dep / 4095.));
  retVal.x = dep - retVal.y * 4095.;
  retVal.x = (retVal.x + 0.5) / 4096.;
  retVal.y = (retVal.y + 0.5) / 17.;
  return retVal;
}



float4 OCIOConvert(in float4 inPixel)
{
  float4 outColor = inPixel;
  outColor.r = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.r)).r;
  outColor.g = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.g)).g;
  outColor.b = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.b)).b;

  return outColor;
}

If anyone ever had that issue, I'll be happy to hear it out :)


Thanks!


AllocationVars with GPU path and 1d LUT

mos...@...
 

Hi,

I've been playing around an integration of OCIO using the GPU path (latest code version build 50) and things are going relatively smoothly. There's one problem that I still have though and it's when I compare conversion result to a conversion made in Nuke. 

I'm using the Nuke-Default configuration and playing with Linear to SRGB conversion.

colorspaces:
  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: linear
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Scene-linear, high dynamic range. Used for rendering and compositing.
    isdata: false
    allocation: lg2
    allocationvars: [-15, 6]

  - !<ColorSpace>
    name: sRGB
    family: ""
    equalitygroup: ""
    bitdepth: 32f
    description: |
      Standard RGB Display Space
    isdata: false
    allocation: uniform
    allocationvars: [-0.125, 1.125]
    to_reference: !<FileTransform> {src: srgb.spi1d, interpolation: linear}

My source image is Marci_512_linear.exr that comes from the reference images. I have applied a Linear to SRGB transform in Nuke and saved an EXR 32 bits uncompressed out of it.

On my side, I have applied the same transform but using the GPU path.

In the hair region, where pixels are well over 1.0, I don't have the same result. My output has clipped to 1.0 and the one from Nuke clipped to 1.25. Samething happens for pixels below 0.0. My result has clipped to 0.0 but in Nuke's output, I can see sub 0.0 values. It looks like the allocation vars aren't taken into account or something.

My shader output looks like this and the language used is HLSL_DX11 :

Texture2D ociolut1d_0;
SamplerState ociolut1d_0Sampler;

float2 ociolut1d_0_computePos(float f)
{
  float dep = min(f, 1.0) * 65535.;
  float2 retVal;
  retVal.y = float(int(dep / 4095.));
  retVal.x = dep - retVal.y * 4095.;
  retVal.x = (retVal.x + 0.5) / 4096.;
  retVal.y = (retVal.y + 0.5) / 17.;
  return retVal;
}



float4 OCIOConvert(in float4 inPixel)
{
  float4 outColor = inPixel;
  outColor.r = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.r)).r;
  outColor.g = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.g)).g;
  outColor.b = ociolut1d_0.Sample(ociolut1d_0Sampler, ociolut1d_0_computePos(outColor.b)).b;

  return outColor;
}

If anyone ever had that issue, I'll be happy to hear it out :)


Thanks!


Re: OCIO Library for Python

Madan Mohan <madanm...@...>
 

Thank you Deke Kincaid but i have seen this i am not able to import PyOpenColorIO as OCIO in  Pycharm or any other things. If i can import those libraries i can easily do the OCIO configurations. I just need to import the library in pycharm and write a script.
 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:53 PM Deke Kincaid <dekek...@...> wrote:
Here are the docs & examples:


Were you looking for something more specific as your query is a bit vague?

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 04:12 Madan Mohan <madanm...@...> wrote:
Hi;
  
    I just want to know how to use OCIO library or Module in a python script externally i am just new to python i know this is a basic one. Can anyone help me out from this issue..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: OCIO Library for Python

Deke Kincaid <dekek...@...>
 

Here are the docs & examples:


Were you looking for something more specific as your query is a bit vague?

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 04:12 Madan Mohan <madanm...@...> wrote:
Hi;
  
    I just want to know how to use OCIO library or Module in a python script externally i am just new to python i know this is a basic one. Can anyone help me out from this issue..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


OCIO Library for Python

Madan Mohan <madanm...@...>
 

Hi;
  
    I just want to know how to use OCIO library or Module in a python script externally i am just new to python i know this is a basic one. Can anyone help me out from this issue..


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

David Wortley <davewo...@...>
 

Having CI for Windows Builds would be amazing to have! 


On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM Francois Lord <flord...@...> wrote:
I'm all for it. OCIO has become an essential part of the VFX world and
making sure its development will continue in a healthy fashion is
important, in my opinion.

I'm very happy to hear this.

Francois


On 2018-09-21 03:22 PM, Larry Gritz wrote:
> Hey, everybody. We're thinking about applying to turn OpenColorIO governance over to the Academy Software Foundation (ASWF), and they are very enthusiastically seeking our application. Before we get that underway, I want to make sure there's a chance here to air any reservations or objections so that we can move forward with a high degree of community consensus, and to answer any questions you may have about the process.
>
> ASWF got a lot of publicity at SIGGRAPH, so I'm going to presume you all know its significance and relevance to us and the basic value proposition. But do speak up if you want more explanation, and I'm happy to expand on it.
>
> I think there are several reasons why turning over governance to ASWF is good for this project:
>
> (1) It emphasizes that OCIO really is a work of and for the VFX community as a whole and shouldn't be thought of as an "Imageworks project", especially in light of the new infusion of contributions from Autodesk and elsewhere. Having it be underneath the foundation's umbrella should be a help to adoption and contributions, versus continuing to be thought of as belonging to one studio.
>
> (2) There are a variety of licensing, legal, and other issues that will be nice to turn over to a neutral party that likely can manage it better, and can do so with close coordination and uniformity with other projects in the ecosystem.
>
> (3) It lets us use the shared infrastructure and engineering support from LF for continuous integration, artifact archival (i.e. compiled release binaries people can directly download and install!), and release management tasks, that are being coordinated and dedicated to ASWF projects. (That's where a lot of the money from the corporate members is going.)
>
> (4) The corporate members not only fork over the $$, they also have to pledge a certain amount of engineering effort to open source. The first couple years (when there is a paucity of ASWF projects), it can go to any project that seems important in the ecosystem, but eventually it will be tightened and fulfilling the engineering obligations of the members will be expected to be dedicated as much as possible to ASWF projects. So by being an official ASWF project, OCIO is more likely to be the recipient of that engineering effort.
>
> (5) OCIO has, to be honest, had some periods when it lacked a strong and consistent leadership, design direction, and implementation contributions. It's pretty healthy right now, but being part of this organization I think is also insurance for the future, to help us with organization, resources, and coordination if and when needed or in times of crisis.
>
> If we go ahead with this, on a day-to-day basis, not much would change. The open source license we use (BSD) would remain the same. The copyrights would continue to be held by the individual authors or their companies. There might be a new CLA (or equivalent), perhaps a common one for all ASWF projects, and maintained by them rather than by Imageworks. Maybe the official canonical repo would eventually move from imageworks to the AcademySoftwareFoundation account on GitHub? But the same developers would work in the same way, the same people would have commit privileges, our process for developing and setting the design and engineering direction would remain as before, all by the same people. There's no micromanagement from above; the healthy projects run their own communities, unless they need help. There might be a more formal notion of a technical steering committee for the project, with the organization helping to facilitate the stakeholders staying in contact. An accepted project gets to elect a representative to the overall ASWF Technical Advisory Committee. I think that covers all the bases of what we'd see on the ground.
>
> I want to emphasize that we haven't made the formal application yet, the ASWF has not yet accepted the project (though since they have solicited our application, our odds are good), and also Sony Imageworks (the current owner/sponsor) has not yet formally committed to the change in governance. But before proceeding further on any of those fronts, I want to make sure this is aligned with the goals and sentiments of the OCIO stakeholders.
>
> Questions or discussion? Pros/cons as you see it?
>
> --
> Larry Gritz
> l...@... / l...@...
>
>
>
>


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Build error on CentOS 7.5

Sachin Shrestha <noizf...@...>
 

Thanks Larry, I realised that too after posting this and managed to build it with 1.8. The ociotools got compiled properly too.

Thanks,
Sachin

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 23:09, Larry Gritz <l...@...> wrote:
Yeah, I'm sorry, in OIIO master branch (the *next* release, in development), there has been an API change that OCIO has not yet caught up with. That's my fault, it's on my list to fix right away.

In the mean time, OCIO requires OIIO 1.8 (the current official stable release) or earlier, if you are building ocioconverr and the other command-line utilities. (OCIO's core library doesn't have any OIIO dependency at all.)

-- lg


On Sep 26, 2018, at 12:21 AM, noizf...@... wrote:

Hi,

I'm using a CentOS 7.5 (3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64) docker instance to build ocio with devtoolset-6 and my build fails with the following error:

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp: In function 'int main(int, const char**)':
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:122:66: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageInput* f = OIIO::ImageInput::create(inputimage);
                                                                 
^
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:311:69: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageOutput* f = OIIO::ImageOutput::create(outputimage);

I also get these warnings initially during the build but not sure if they eventually cause the build to error out?

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/build/ext/yaml-cpp/src/ptr_stack.h:35:8: warning: 'template<class> class std::auto_ptr' is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
   std
::auto_ptr<T> t(m_data.back());

I'm following the build instructions on this page. I have already built oiio and its installed in the default system location and ocio is picking that up correctly during the build process. But I came across this post re the cyclic dependency issue between ocio and oiio and I'm wondering if I need to follow the instructions on that thread in Linux as well since I intend to build all the ocio apps?

Thanks,
Sachin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Larry Gritz




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Build error on CentOS 7.5

Larry Gritz <l...@...>
 

Yeah, I'm sorry, in OIIO master branch (the *next* release, in development), there has been an API change that OCIO has not yet caught up with. That's my fault, it's on my list to fix right away.

In the mean time, OCIO requires OIIO 1.8 (the current official stable release) or earlier, if you are building ocioconverr and the other command-line utilities. (OCIO's core library doesn't have any OIIO dependency at all.)

-- lg


On Sep 26, 2018, at 12:21 AM, noizf...@... wrote:

Hi,

I'm using a CentOS 7.5 (3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64) docker instance to build ocio with devtoolset-6 and my build fails with the following error:

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp: In function 'int main(int, const char**)':
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:122:66: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageInput* f = OIIO::ImageInput::create(inputimage);
                                                                 
^
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:311:69: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageOutput* f = OIIO::ImageOutput::create(outputimage);

I also get these warnings initially during the build but not sure if they eventually cause the build to error out?

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/build/ext/yaml-cpp/src/ptr_stack.h:35:8: warning: 'template<class> class std::auto_ptr' is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
   std
::auto_ptr<T> t(m_data.back());

I'm following the build instructions on this page. I have already built oiio and its installed in the default system location and ocio is picking that up correctly during the build process. But I came across this post re the cyclic dependency issue between ocio and oiio and I'm wondering if I need to follow the instructions on that thread in Linux as well since I intend to build all the ocio apps?

Thanks,
Sachin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Larry Gritz





Build error on CentOS 7.5

noizf...@...
 

Hi,

I'm using a CentOS 7.5 (3.10.0-693.2.2.el7.x86_64) docker instance to build ocio with devtoolset-6 and my build fails with the following error:

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp: In function 'int main(int, const char**)':
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:122:66: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageInput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageInput* f = OIIO::ImageInput::create(inputimage);
                                                                 
^
/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/src/apps/ocioconvert/main.cpp:311:69: error: cannot convert 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput::unique_ptr {aka std::unique_ptr<OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput>}' to 'OpenImageIO_v1_9::ImageOutput*' in initialization
         OIIO
::ImageOutput* f = OIIO::ImageOutput::create(outputimage);

I also get these warnings initially during the build but not sure if they eventually cause the build to error out?

/oss/imageworks/OpenColorIO/build/ext/yaml-cpp/src/ptr_stack.h:35:8: warning: 'template<class> class std::auto_ptr' is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
   std
::auto_ptr<T> t(m_data.back());

I'm following the build instructions on this page. I have already built oiio and its installed in the default system location and ocio is picking that up correctly during the build process. But I came across this post re the cyclic dependency issue between ocio and oiio and I'm wondering if I need to follow the instructions on that thread in Linux as well since I intend to build all the ocio apps?

Thanks,
Sachin


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Sebastian Sylwan <syl...@...>
 

Thumbs firmly up from me as well. 

FWIW, OCIO was one of the case studies that the VES Tech committee brought to the ASWF discussion as deep dive examples, so the ASWF structure was in a way biased to address what was identified as useful to these projects (as many of you already know).  

S


On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 4:47 AM Kevin Wheatley <kevin.j....@...> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Steve Agland <sag...@...> wrote:
> Thumbs up from me. Another reason I see is that in my mind the Academy's ACES config is now the de facto "reference implementation" for OCIO and it makes sense to have them living closer together.
>

Whilst I agree with the reasoning, I think it is better to be clear
that there is no hard commitment for the ACES work to be moved under
ASWF, there was discussion about this at the ACES next BoF but I got
the feeling that people thought the ASWF was emphasizing  the Software
side of things for the moment and ACES covers larger concerns, and
thus was a 'not yet'.

That said the last ASWF TAC meeting did bring up discussion over none
software artefacts.

Also to add to Larry's point about who is/would be driving things, you
can find out yourself by simply participating in the public calls (I
just listen in).

Kevin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Kevin Wheatley <kevin.j....@...>
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Steve Agland <sag...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thumbs up from me. Another reason I see is that in my mind the Academy's ACES config is now the de facto "reference implementation" for OCIO and it makes sense to have them living closer together.
Whilst I agree with the reasoning, I think it is better to be clear
that there is no hard commitment for the ACES work to be moved under
ASWF, there was discussion about this at the ACES next BoF but I got
the feeling that people thought the ASWF was emphasizing the Software
side of things for the moment and ACES covers larger concerns, and
thus was a 'not yet'.

That said the last ASWF TAC meeting did bring up discussion over none
software artefacts.

Also to add to Larry's point about who is/would be driving things, you
can find out yourself by simply participating in the public calls (I
just listen in).

Kevin


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Sean Looper <sean....@...>
 

I didn't realize how much I wanted a mysterious council of alien overlords until you said we weren't getting one. ;)

That all sounds great, Larry. Thanks for the clarification. Within the ASWF structure I hope to see continued leadership from you and others who have helped propel OCIO forward. It sounds like a win for everyone involved if all goes to plan.


On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 5:23 PM Larry Gritz <l...@...> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Sean Looper <sean....@...> wrote:
 I would like to hear how AWSF plans to avoid design/development by committee and the tendency that such a strategy has to fall short of the mark. 

ASWF is not involved in the design or development per se.

It's *us* who avoids design by committee, if that's what we want.

In the process of being accepted, we (as a community) would need to establish a charter that lays out our procedures. They are happy to accept a benevolent dictator, or a committee, or whatever else we want that would seem to work. We need to decide how to proceed.

To clarify, here are some things ASWF can do for us:

* Be a neutral party to hold assets like the domain, trademarks, etc., as well as encourage usage and contributions by making it a shared industry project rather than having the appearance of "ownership" by one studio.

* Shield us from liability by holding each project in its own LLC, legally distinct from any of us, our companies, or other projects.

* Provide and share some infrastructure and expertise, including some of the painful nuts and bolts related to CI, porting, testing, release engineering.

* Help direct toward this project the engineering contribution obligations of the premier member companies.

* Help coordinate communication with other projects and copies in the ecosystem, and help us get organized if we again fall into some period of disorganization.

It's worth also pointing out that ASWF is not some mysterious council of alien overlords. It literally *is* us, with its governance and technical direction set by the same companies that have been involved in using and building OCIO all along -- Dreamworks, Autodesk, DNeg, Disney, Sony (er, any day now, really), etc.


--
Larry Gritz




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Larry Gritz <l...@...>
 

On Sep 23, 2018, at 12:28 PM, Sean Looper <sean....@...> wrote:
 I would like to hear how AWSF plans to avoid design/development by committee and the tendency that such a strategy has to fall short of the mark. 

ASWF is not involved in the design or development per se.

It's *us* who avoids design by committee, if that's what we want.

In the process of being accepted, we (as a community) would need to establish a charter that lays out our procedures. They are happy to accept a benevolent dictator, or a committee, or whatever else we want that would seem to work. We need to decide how to proceed.

To clarify, here are some things ASWF can do for us:

* Be a neutral party to hold assets like the domain, trademarks, etc., as well as encourage usage and contributions by making it a shared industry project rather than having the appearance of "ownership" by one studio.

* Shield us from liability by holding each project in its own LLC, legally distinct from any of us, our companies, or other projects.

* Provide and share some infrastructure and expertise, including some of the painful nuts and bolts related to CI, porting, testing, release engineering.

* Help direct toward this project the engineering contribution obligations of the premier member companies.

* Help coordinate communication with other projects and copies in the ecosystem, and help us get organized if we again fall into some period of disorganization.

It's worth also pointing out that ASWF is not some mysterious council of alien overlords. It literally *is* us, with its governance and technical direction set by the same companies that have been involved in using and building OCIO all along -- Dreamworks, Autodesk, DNeg, Disney, Sony (er, any day now, really), etc.


--
Larry Gritz





Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Sean Looper <sean....@...>
 

My only concerns are around the general benefits of having a single, production-focused sponsor (SPI in this case). As Larry alluded to, there are pros and cons to a single sponsor, the greatest con in my mind being the potential for fits and starts being tied solely to that sponsor. The major benefit, as I think we've seen with projects like OpenEXR, Alembic, USD and others is an authoritarian focus on a single, owner-centric goal. I don't necessarily need convincing of AWSF governance for OCIO given its sometimes aimless history since Jeremy moved on but I would like to hear how AWSF plans to avoid design/development by committee and the tendency that such a strategy has to fall short of the mark. 


On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:05 AM Haarm-Pieter Duiker <li...@...> wrote:
Two thumbs up. OCIO is a great candidate for the services and standardization that the AWSF will provide.

HP



On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Larry Gritz <l...@...> wrote:
Hey, everybody. We're thinking about applying to turn OpenColorIO governance over to the Academy Software Foundation (ASWF), and they are very enthusiastically seeking our application. Before we get that underway, I want to make sure there's a chance here to air any reservations or objections so that we can move forward with a high degree of community consensus, and to answer any questions you may have about the process.

ASWF got a lot of publicity at SIGGRAPH, so I'm going to presume you all know its significance and relevance to us and the basic value proposition. But do speak up if you want more explanation, and I'm happy to expand on it.

I think there are several reasons why turning over governance to ASWF is good for this project:

(1) It emphasizes that OCIO really is a work of and for the VFX community as a whole and shouldn't be thought of as an "Imageworks project", especially in light of the new infusion of contributions from Autodesk and elsewhere. Having it be underneath the foundation's umbrella should be a help to adoption and contributions, versus continuing to be thought of as belonging to one studio.

(2) There are a variety of licensing, legal, and other issues that will be nice to turn over to a neutral party that likely can manage it better, and can do so with close coordination and uniformity with other projects in the ecosystem.

(3) It lets us use the shared infrastructure and engineering support from LF for continuous integration, artifact archival (i.e. compiled release binaries people can directly download and install!), and release management tasks, that are being coordinated and dedicated to ASWF projects. (That's where a lot of the money from the corporate members is going.)

(4) The corporate members not only fork over the $$, they also have to pledge a certain amount of engineering effort to open source. The first couple years (when there is a paucity of ASWF projects), it can go to any project that seems important in the ecosystem, but eventually it will be tightened and fulfilling the engineering obligations of the members will be expected to be dedicated as much as possible to ASWF projects. So by being an official ASWF project, OCIO is more likely to be the recipient of that engineering effort.

(5) OCIO has, to be honest, had some periods when it lacked a strong and consistent leadership, design direction, and implementation contributions. It's pretty healthy right now, but being part of this organization I think is also insurance for the future, to help us with organization, resources, and coordination if and when needed or in times of crisis.

If we go ahead with this, on a day-to-day basis, not much would change. The open source license we use (BSD) would remain the same. The copyrights would continue to be held by the individual authors or their companies. There might be a new CLA (or equivalent), perhaps a common one for all ASWF projects, and maintained by them rather than by Imageworks. Maybe the official canonical repo would eventually move from imageworks to the AcademySoftwareFoundation account on GitHub? But the same developers would work in the same way, the same people would have commit privileges, our process for developing and setting the design and engineering direction would remain as before, all by the same people. There's no micromanagement from above; the healthy projects run their own communities, unless they need help. There might be a more formal notion of a technical steering committee for the project, with the organization helping to facilitate the stakeholders staying in contact. An accepted project gets to elect a representative to the overall ASWF Technical Advisory Committee. I think that covers all the bases of what we'd see on the ground.

I want to emphasize that we haven't made the formal application yet, the ASWF has not yet accepted the project (though since they have solicited our application, our odds are good), and also Sony Imageworks (the current owner/sponsor) has not yet formally committed to the change in governance. But before proceeding further on any of those fronts, I want to make sure this is aligned with the goals and sentiments of the OCIO stakeholders.

Questions or discussion? Pros/cons as you see it?

--
Larry Gritz
l...@... / l...@...




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Haarm-Pieter Duiker <li...@...>
 

Two thumbs up. OCIO is a great candidate for the services and standardization that the AWSF will provide.

HP



On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Larry Gritz <l...@...> wrote:
Hey, everybody. We're thinking about applying to turn OpenColorIO governance over to the Academy Software Foundation (ASWF), and they are very enthusiastically seeking our application. Before we get that underway, I want to make sure there's a chance here to air any reservations or objections so that we can move forward with a high degree of community consensus, and to answer any questions you may have about the process.

ASWF got a lot of publicity at SIGGRAPH, so I'm going to presume you all know its significance and relevance to us and the basic value proposition. But do speak up if you want more explanation, and I'm happy to expand on it.

I think there are several reasons why turning over governance to ASWF is good for this project:

(1) It emphasizes that OCIO really is a work of and for the VFX community as a whole and shouldn't be thought of as an "Imageworks project", especially in light of the new infusion of contributions from Autodesk and elsewhere. Having it be underneath the foundation's umbrella should be a help to adoption and contributions, versus continuing to be thought of as belonging to one studio.

(2) There are a variety of licensing, legal, and other issues that will be nice to turn over to a neutral party that likely can manage it better, and can do so with close coordination and uniformity with other projects in the ecosystem.

(3) It lets us use the shared infrastructure and engineering support from LF for continuous integration, artifact archival (i.e. compiled release binaries people can directly download and install!), and release management tasks, that are being coordinated and dedicated to ASWF projects. (That's where a lot of the money from the corporate members is going.)

(4) The corporate members not only fork over the $$, they also have to pledge a certain amount of engineering effort to open source. The first couple years (when there is a paucity of ASWF projects), it can go to any project that seems important in the ecosystem, but eventually it will be tightened and fulfilling the engineering obligations of the members will be expected to be dedicated as much as possible to ASWF projects. So by being an official ASWF project, OCIO is more likely to be the recipient of that engineering effort.

(5) OCIO has, to be honest, had some periods when it lacked a strong and consistent leadership, design direction, and implementation contributions. It's pretty healthy right now, but being part of this organization I think is also insurance for the future, to help us with organization, resources, and coordination if and when needed or in times of crisis.

If we go ahead with this, on a day-to-day basis, not much would change. The open source license we use (BSD) would remain the same. The copyrights would continue to be held by the individual authors or their companies. There might be a new CLA (or equivalent), perhaps a common one for all ASWF projects, and maintained by them rather than by Imageworks. Maybe the official canonical repo would eventually move from imageworks to the AcademySoftwareFoundation account on GitHub? But the same developers would work in the same way, the same people would have commit privileges, our process for developing and setting the design and engineering direction would remain as before, all by the same people. There's no micromanagement from above; the healthy projects run their own communities, unless they need help. There might be a more formal notion of a technical steering committee for the project, with the organization helping to facilitate the stakeholders staying in contact. An accepted project gets to elect a representative to the overall ASWF Technical Advisory Committee. I think that covers all the bases of what we'd see on the ground.

I want to emphasize that we haven't made the formal application yet, the ASWF has not yet accepted the project (though since they have solicited our application, our odds are good), and also Sony Imageworks (the current owner/sponsor) has not yet formally committed to the change in governance. But before proceeding further on any of those fronts, I want to make sure this is aligned with the goals and sentiments of the OCIO stakeholders.

Questions or discussion? Pros/cons as you see it?

--
Larry Gritz
l...@... / l...@...




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Steve Agland <sag...@...>
 

Thumbs up from me. Another reason I see is that in my mind the Academy's ACES config is now the de facto "reference implementation" for OCIO and it makes sense to have them living closer together.

Steve


Re: Considering OCIO --> ASWF

Francois Lord <flord...@...>
 

I'm all for it. OCIO has become an essential part of the VFX world and
making sure its development will continue in a healthy fashion is
important, in my opinion.

I'm very happy to hear this.

Francois

On 2018-09-21 03:22 PM, Larry Gritz wrote:
Hey, everybody. We're thinking about applying to turn OpenColorIO governance over to the Academy Software Foundation (ASWF), and they are very enthusiastically seeking our application. Before we get that underway, I want to make sure there's a chance here to air any reservations or objections so that we can move forward with a high degree of community consensus, and to answer any questions you may have about the process.

ASWF got a lot of publicity at SIGGRAPH, so I'm going to presume you all know its significance and relevance to us and the basic value proposition. But do speak up if you want more explanation, and I'm happy to expand on it.

I think there are several reasons why turning over governance to ASWF is good for this project:

(1) It emphasizes that OCIO really is a work of and for the VFX community as a whole and shouldn't be thought of as an "Imageworks project", especially in light of the new infusion of contributions from Autodesk and elsewhere. Having it be underneath the foundation's umbrella should be a help to adoption and contributions, versus continuing to be thought of as belonging to one studio.

(2) There are a variety of licensing, legal, and other issues that will be nice to turn over to a neutral party that likely can manage it better, and can do so with close coordination and uniformity with other projects in the ecosystem.

(3) It lets us use the shared infrastructure and engineering support from LF for continuous integration, artifact archival (i.e. compiled release binaries people can directly download and install!), and release management tasks, that are being coordinated and dedicated to ASWF projects. (That's where a lot of the money from the corporate members is going.)

(4) The corporate members not only fork over the $$, they also have to pledge a certain amount of engineering effort to open source. The first couple years (when there is a paucity of ASWF projects), it can go to any project that seems important in the ecosystem, but eventually it will be tightened and fulfilling the engineering obligations of the members will be expected to be dedicated as much as possible to ASWF projects. So by being an official ASWF project, OCIO is more likely to be the recipient of that engineering effort.

(5) OCIO has, to be honest, had some periods when it lacked a strong and consistent leadership, design direction, and implementation contributions. It's pretty healthy right now, but being part of this organization I think is also insurance for the future, to help us with organization, resources, and coordination if and when needed or in times of crisis.

If we go ahead with this, on a day-to-day basis, not much would change. The open source license we use (BSD) would remain the same. The copyrights would continue to be held by the individual authors or their companies. There might be a new CLA (or equivalent), perhaps a common one for all ASWF projects, and maintained by them rather than by Imageworks. Maybe the official canonical repo would eventually move from imageworks to the AcademySoftwareFoundation account on GitHub? But the same developers would work in the same way, the same people would have commit privileges, our process for developing and setting the design and engineering direction would remain as before, all by the same people. There's no micromanagement from above; the healthy projects run their own communities, unless they need help. There might be a more formal notion of a technical steering committee for the project, with the organization helping to facilitate the stakeholders staying in contact. An accepted project gets to elect a representative to the overall ASWF Technical Advisory Committee. I think that covers all the bases of what we'd see on the ground.

I want to emphasize that we haven't made the formal application yet, the ASWF has not yet accepted the project (though since they have solicited our application, our odds are good), and also Sony Imageworks (the current owner/sponsor) has not yet formally committed to the change in governance. But before proceeding further on any of those fronts, I want to make sure this is aligned with the goals and sentiments of the OCIO stakeholders.

Questions or discussion? Pros/cons as you see it?

--
Larry Gritz
l...@larrygritz.com / l...@imageworks.com



401 - 420 of 2143