Here are the docs & examples:

http://opencolorio.org/developers/bindings/PythonAPI.html

http://opencolorio.org/developers/usage_examples.html

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Hello OCIO community,

On Tuesday (August 14th) we held the OpenColorIO Birds of a Feather meeting at SIGGRAPH 2018 in Vancouver. Thanks to everyone who was able to attend, we had a great turnout!

The agenda focused on the latest pull requests from the Autodesk OCIO v2 team: Doug Walker, Patrick Hodoul, and Bernard Lefebvre. Doug ran a live demo in Flame showing Lut3D inversion, tetrahedral interpolation on the GPU, ICC and CLF support, and new Range and CDL ops. Patrick then gave an explanation of the new GPU renderer, greatly expanded unit tests, and additions to ocioconvert and ociodisplay for validating OCIO output.

I followed Doug and Patrick's presentation with a case study on how we implemented the new GPU renderer at Imageworks, and are seeing parity with the same color transforms in Nuke's implementation of the OCIO CPU renderer.

We also heard an update from Foundry's Tony Micilotta on the future of OCIO integration in Nuke.

Sean Cooper (DNEG) and Mark Boorer (ILM) concluded the meeting by moderating a discussion on the OCIO v2 proposal for rigorous built-in transforms and the potential for an external "OpenColorMath" C++ library.

The presentation slides are attached for your reference. Conversation will continue in this mail list and the OCIO Slack group, so feel free to add your thoughts or ask any questions you may have. A recorded version of Doug's demo will be made available sometime after SIGGRAPH, so stay tuned. 

Thanks!

Michael Dolan

--
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.