OFX: What it is and isn't.

farss wrote on 3/26/2011, 8:09 AM
Seeing as how Vegas and OFX is mentioned quite a lot here I thought it worth trying to get a better understanding of what it is and what it isn't.

From my research I believe it provides a standard way for a plugin to be called from a host, an image supplied to the plugin and an image to be returned, on a frame by frame basis. There's a bit more functionality that permits no frame to be supplied but one returned to support things such as noise generators. Two frames can be supplied so that transitions are supported. Also a frame of alpha channel data can be supplied.

Obviously there's more complexity to it than that, most of which goes over my head. Still by my very basic understanding the interface is limited to what are non temporal image manipulations. That would exclude plugins such as image stabilisation and motion tracking.

Of course I could be completely and utterly wrong, my hope is someone will set me straight if so and all of us will get a better understanding of what all the fuss is about.

Bob.

Comments

Jøran Toresen wrote on 3/26/2011, 10:42 AM
Bob said: “Still by my very basic understanding the interface is limited to what are non temporal image manipulations. That would exclude plugins such as image stabilisation and motion tracking.”

In the OFX version of BCC7 (Boris) you can do motion tracking and BCC7 comes with a motion stabilizer (called BCC Optical Stabilizer).

Jøran
Jøran Toresen wrote on 3/26/2011, 11:34 AM
More info about OFX here:

http://openfx.sourceforge.net/

Jøran
LoTN wrote on 3/26/2011, 1:36 PM
Bob,

Basically, OFX is a standardized API for image manipulation plugins. It has a set of standard includes, templates, data structures definitions and a functions library providing tools for the code writer (C or C++).

OFX model defines data sharing between a plugin and a host (in our case a NLE). Very simplified, this model ends in an OFX host calling some plugin and that plugin using OFX functions to get information served by the host, perform image manipulation, generate and send the result back to the host.

The GUI part of the plugin is in the host and accessed thru callback routines.

In theory, OFX allows the use of any plugin with an OFX host, given it is compiled for the same kernel OS and architecture. Considering there's no bug neither bad implementations, some OFX plugin advertised for Toxik could be run with Vegas or need little changes.

An OFX host can serve more than one frame. As Jøran said, it is possible to create plugins for temporal effects like BCC7 time flow, Twixtor, etc... This is a great step ahead from DX plugins.

What it is not:
- a proprietary and closed source plugin framework
- an OS or platform technology
- a licenced commercial software

With the hope it clarifies.
farss wrote on 3/26/2011, 4:03 PM
"The GUI part of the plugin is in the host and accessed thru callback routines."

I didn't get that part. So all OFX plugins should have the same look and feel in the one host, excellent.

"In theory, OFX allows the use of any plugin with an OFX host, given it is compiled for the same kernel OS and architecture. Considering there's no bug neither bad implementations, some OFX plugin advertised for Toxik could be run with Vegas or need little changes"

That's the interesting part.
OFX started out life at The Foundry. Just checking there and I see Furnace is apparently not OFX nor is Camera Tracker.

I also noted comments from Boris along the lines of Vegas is a difficult host to code for. Given that OFX is supposedly host agnostic I'm left wondering why the difficulty, shouldn't this stuff just work?

Also if OFX is such a panacea why aren't more companies getting on board. OFX is quite old and mature. I was at first hoping that OFX would be to the video world what VST is to the audio world but I just don't see that happening.

Bob.
ps. Isn't Toxik dead?
TheHappyFriar wrote on 3/26/2011, 4:24 PM
I also noted comments from Boris along the lines of Vegas is a difficult host to code for. Given that OFX is supposedly host agnostic I'm left wondering why the difficulty, shouldn't this stuff just work?

I thought that was a comment on the older (and still usable from what I understand) plugin system.

Also if OFX is such a panacea why aren't more companies getting on board. OFX is quite old and mature. I was at first hoping that OFX would be to the video world what VST is to the audio world but I just don't see that happening.

Same reason OGL is "losing" compared to Direct X: marketing. The open stuff needs people to push it, not the developers.
Spectralis wrote on 3/26/2011, 10:14 PM
What I'm not clear about is whether any plugin coded for OFX will work with Vegas 10 or is it only specific ones? There are a few OFX plugins available but are they all compatible with Vegas? If not why not?
ushere wrote on 3/27/2011, 3:16 AM
google translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvegas.babasse.net%2F%3Fp%3D501

sort of ok....
LoTN wrote on 3/27/2011, 3:24 AM
Yes, a little bit rough... :D
LoTN wrote on 3/27/2011, 3:48 AM
farss:

I didn't get that part. So all OFX plugins should have the same look and feel in the one host, excellent.

You can glance at the GUI look here. I'm sorry it is not in english.

Isn't Toxik dead?

I suppose that Toxik users may have switched to Maya.


Spectralis:

What I'm not clear about is whether any plugin coded for OFX will work with Vegas 10 or is it only specific ones? There are a few OFX plugins available but are they all compatible with Vegas?

I haven't yet had the time to dig deeply into this but I believe that if the host fully implements the specs there should be no reason that some OFX plugin would not work with Vegas. Some week ago, a SCS forums poster said he was able to run Foundry plugins. The only constraint I see is the binary compatibility.
farss wrote on 3/27/2011, 4:07 AM
Something has been really lost in translation, the guy is trying Boris Film Effects, he mentions The Foundry but never tries anything from them.

So far I can find zip from The Foundry that is OFX or that they say can run in Vegas. Which is kind of curious, OFX was their brainchild before it went open source and The Foundry host the OFX fora and blogs.

Even wierder, RG's Particular now runs in Nuke, The Foundry's own compositing app, so clearly Nuke is not OFX or OFX is not much really or else it'd run in Vegas as an OFX plug???

Bob.
LoTN wrote on 3/27/2011, 4:24 AM
Something has been really lost in translation, the guy is trying Boris Film Effects, he mentions The Foundry but never tries anything from them.

The guy says that OFX support opens the door to plugins from companies like The Foundry GenArts or Boris. He never states he tested all of them. He just had a try with one BCC unit. That's all.

So far I can find zip from The Foundry that is OFX or that they say can run in Vegas. Which is kind of curious, OFX was their brainchild before it went open source and The Foundry host the OFX fora and blogs.

My mistake, I inadvertently used The Foundry because of OFX history. When typing that I was thinking about "violet" saying in this post he was able to run twixtor. Never tried myself.

Even wierder, RG's Particular now runs in Nuke, The Foundry's own compositing app, so clearly Nuke is not OFX or OFX is not much really or else it'd run in Vegas as an OFX plug???

Having an OFX host in some NLE or compositing software doesn't exclude the ability to have also another plugin framework. Look at Vegas, it has OFX and DX.. Sapphire for Nuke is one example of OFX plugin.
farss wrote on 3/27/2011, 5:00 AM
Slightly OT but I just noticed GenArts have their Monsters GT package at $999 or bundled with Sapphire for $2299. Monsters GT does have some nice particles :)



Bob.