RAM Preview ?

When I work within Fusion and I am pulling my .exr container, it takes very long to load the frames.

Is there a way to speed up that process ?

For instance.. when I load my first .exr file, I continue by copying the same loader. And from the copy I shuffle out the pass I need.

Is there any other way I should do that to speed up that process ?
I was running a test for one shot. And the total amount of frames are 32GB.

I also saved all frames on my local hard drive to make it faster, and not pulling the data from the server. But even so.. pretty slow...

So what do you suggest to make this more efficient ?

Thank you so much for any little help !

Save out separate EXRs. Generally speaking that is faster.

for working with multichannel EXR Files, we must wait , till Fusion supports EXR 2.0 , which only loaded the seperate channel u "look at" ( " Multi-part image files. Files can contain a number of separate, but related, images in one file. Access to any part is independent of the others; in particular, no access of data need take place for unrequested parts." ) , instead of loading all channels at once. Your 3D package need support EXR 2.0 also.
I really hope Fusion8 will support it

for working with multichannel EXR Files, we must wait , till Fusion supports EXR 2.0 , which only loaded the seperate channel u "look at" ( " Multi-part image files. Files can contain a number of separate, but related, images in one file. Access to any part is independent of the others; in particular, no access of data need take place for unrequested parts." ) , instead of loading all channels at once. Your 3D package need support EXR 2.0 also.
I really hope Fusion8 will support it

Still not faster though. Machine the files or partially updating them will still be slower.

what about deep compositing support on Fusion 8? deep openEXR 2.0

what about deep compositing support on Fusion 8? deep openEXR 2.0

As a wishlist item?

Hmm.. so you are saying, instead of saving out all render passes within one single .exr I should save out each Render Pass as it's own .exr file ?

- Specular-Pass.exr
- Refelction-Pass.exr
- etc.
- etc.


And that should be faster ?

I was hoping, that even if I would load one .exr containing all render passes in one shot.. that this file can be used over and over again. Like an "instance" so to speak. And from that file, you shuffle out the different render passes as needed.

But since it's an INSTANCE, it should pull and handle only one .exr file instead of loading all the time a new .exr file for each render pass. And that "INSTANCE" function doesn't work ?

What ever works best.. I will do it, but I would need some serious guidance here.

So to speak: What the heck is the fastest and best way to go ?

Separate EXRs should be faster in most cases.

Instancing of Loaders doesn't make any practical sense. If you want to link the clips, you'll have to do that with a script.

Don't instance the loader, just branch out different channel booleans for each pass you need. Not exactly what you want, but much cleaner.

Don't instance the loader, just branch out different channel booleans for each pass you need. Not exactly what you want, but much cleaner.

that is a hack and even one work-able, however a short one and a cumberstone, since Fusion supports only limited number of channels. When You have a specular_R; spec_B, spec_G; You'll hit a limit fast...
hence a pass per seq is much more preffered way for Fusion - no to mention about being able to view and manipulate the passes - Fusion tools work mostly on RGBA data, almost no "grading" on auxiliary channels.

Don't instance the loader, just branch out different channel booleans for each pass you need. Not exactly what you want, but much cleaner.

that is a hack and even one work-able, however a short one and a cumberstone, since Fusion supports only limited number of channels. When You have a specular_R; spec_B, spec_G; You'll hit a limit fast...
hence a pass per seq is much more preffered way for Fusion - no to mention about being able to view and manipulate the passes - Fusion tools work mostly on RGBA data, almost no "grading" on auxiliary channels.

And by having one loader with many branches, you build up cache dependency. If you decide "Oh, I want different channel swizzling" or "I need to update the specular color pass because there's an artifact in it" you end up invalidating ALL of the other branches. Oops! So to avoid that, use discrete Loaders.

There is no question that for current way fusion works, separated passes is the best option for performance, memory, usability etc..

Hmm.. so you are saying, instead of saving out all render passes within one single .exr I should save out each Render Pass as it's own .exr file ?

- Specular-Pass.exr
- Refelction-Pass.exr
- etc.
- etc.


And that should be faster ?

It is faster if you don't need all passes at the same time due to the bad way in which exrs are saving their layer data (EXR 2.0 improved this but Fusion doesn't support that format).

It's not faster to set it up (there are helper scripts though) and it's not faster if you want to exchange the rendering (new version, different rendered element and such things) but you can use Fusion's Loader/Saver search & replace script.

This is certainly a major thing that Fusion could and should improve in the future and I wish it had already been done for Fusion 7.... But it's a major undertaking because passing multiple layers through the comp affects almost everything in the way Fusion caches, renders and handles data as well as its GUI.

But since it's an INSTANCE, it should pull and handle only one .exr file instead of loading all the time a new .exr file for each render pass. And that "INSTANCE" function doesn't work ?

If a tool is instanced it means that it shares all of its slider values with another tool automatically. It doesn't mean that it shares the image data it gets passed.

Hmmm... fudge... that's a real bummer. So now tell me. The competitive NukeX, can handle that faster or different ?

Curious now.

ok.. I guess that's the only way so far... was wondering if there are any other advantages or disadvantages I didn't consider yet.. well.. using the .exr container and shuffling out each pass vs. saving each pass in it's own separate .exr file.

thx for all your advice, comments and input - like always, highly appreciated !

The only advantage of having monolithic EXR files is fewer files in your filesystem. In nearly any other aspect, separate EXR files is better.