by Notiusweb » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:39 pm
Notiusweb
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:39 pm
Just on the JPG end of things...
I asked for this a while back when V2 was changing to V3. Because in fact, an earlier version of V3 plugin could export to JPG, and it was then removed in a V3 build update. FaceOff took over the plugin development towards the end of the V2 development cycle, whee the previous developer had a JPG save option.
When I asked, FaceOff told me that the Standalone only saves to PNG or EXR, and thus he was looking to make the plugin as consistent as possible to the Standalone. I argued your points, SparkieShock, but he explained that old lines of code could in effect clash with newer ones being created for V3, so having code instructions that are not in the Standalone build in the first place would complicate and potentially hurt the coding process moving forward. He referred me to request that the Standalone be updated to allow JPG.
So, to the credit of a developer's point of view, doing this is consistent with looking to optimize the plugin for us. Did you ever have an IT person in a company tell you that something can't or shouldn't be done because of some 'system thing', and you are left standing there thinking, "You heard nothing of what I said! What I asked for is going to make me getting my job done so much better....!". Well, they are thinking the exact same thing, from their point of view.
Now, as far as the Standalone goes, a request will fall on deaf ears, I already tried requesting:
(1) A company will move if it earns them more $, for some reason it may be viewed that allowing users to export to JPG may hurt some alliance or relationship, marketing of the product, or productivity flow that impedes $. They have to consider a larger cohesive vision that allows them to sell their product, in the way they see fit to do it.
(2) Many users do not in fact animate, so they see no harm in having the higher performing PNG for still renders, and in fact see it as upholding a greater presentation of their own work. Thus, they in turn will combat you for even considering the JPG option, and all its artifacty badness. I have seen this in many forums, users protest the idea of using JPG frames in a render, as if not using PNG is desecrating the process. All in the name of image, and they want to uphold that image, it matters not what image or vision you have. And everyone is entitled to their opinion.
(3) Consider this- media outlets many times will require, or recommend, higher visual criteria for submission to their company for consideration or output. So, if you ghad to choose A vs B, you would rather have a 16 and 32 bit option to output media to, as it will meet industry standard in a lot of professional cases.
But I am with you, when you animate, even with PNG, then you will inevitably compress the video down with some codec, thus reducing the visual quality anyway, so it's, to us, just a big waste of space in the end.
In some ways they don't get it, a great art work in JPG beats a bad artwork in PNG. Like, some older films were masterpieces, but they were not filmed in HD, right? So it's just a philosophical meandering.
And, I have asked for JPG more than once, and it was not seen as, "Yeah, we could do that, sure. We know this will make your workflow more manageable on your end, so we are happy to do it for you."
That is not what has happened. Now, it has happened, in other cases, for other requests. So not at all a knock. But in historical context, not for this one.
And you can export as 8bit PNG to reduce file size, but it never gets as low and efficient as JPG.
But just do this, don't worry about what is not being done by someone else, find and optimize ways for you to do it your way!
Win 10 Pro 64, Xeon E5-2687W v2 (8x 3.40GHz), G.Skill 64 GB DDR3-2400, ASRock X79 Extreme 11
Mobo: 1 Titan RTX, 1 Titan Xp
External: 6 Titan X Pascal, 2 GTX Titan X
Plugs: Enterprise
.. but here's one thing I could REALLY enjoy knowing.
