Shake Macros Nodes Called From The Command Line

[user_deleted]

Hi,

I have a question about Shake command line (render) interface. Is it possible to
call your macros or custom plugin nodes on a commandline composite?

[user_deleted]

sure
If you type shake - help yourMacroName it will print the prototype of your macro.
The main difference : on the command line image ibnput is implicit (output from previous node)

[user_deleted]

Thanks, it worked.

Now i have another problem,
I've embedded a fileout inside a macro, (which i don't know if its a good or bad idea)
but, I want to know if there is a way to suppress the flipbook from appearing when rendering.

[user_deleted]

i simply suggest that you remove the fileout from the macro and add a fileout node (-fo) to the end of your command line. simple isn't it ?
If for some reason you don't want the file to be writen and don't want to see it either (but then i don't understand what you want) simply send it to nowhere (/dev/null)

[user_deleted]

Yeah, thanks for that.
I found out that -fo doesn't display the flipbook.
However, what i'm trying to do is something like:

shake image.#.jpg -_1k_cin_fileout ~/Desktop/bob -t 0-5 -vv

Where I let the macro do the stuff.

When I trying to redirect stdout to dev null,
with my fileout inside a macro, the flipbook still appears. Which is strange,
is because the macro (for testing purposes) only has a single fileout node as well.

[user_deleted]

really, you should not put fileout inside macros , that won't work afaik....
If you need to send some custom variables or other stuff, there are workarounds ....

[user_deleted]

QUOTE(bluejet @ 02/01/06, 12:06 AM) [snapback]226870[/snapback]
However, what i'm trying to do is something like:

shake image.#.jpg -_1k_cin_fileout ~/Desktop/bob -t 0-5 -vv

what's wrong with:

shake /path/filein.#.jpg -macro_without_fileout -fo /path/fileout.#.cin -t 0-5 -vv

?

++ christoph

[user_deleted]

Oh,
nothing, I'm just tosing the idea of simplying a shake script for this general scriptly thing that would handle
different macros. Reduced the errors by reducing the number of inputs. I've tried
this command which suppresses the filpbook.

shake -t 1-10 -vv imageinput -macro imagefileout -fo /tmp/bob

The fileout inside the macro worked (handles the extensions, padding, etc), but there is still one image being created which is redundant, but then again, no machine on the farm would render more than one job. so thats okay, since that file won't be overwritten at the same time. (i think).

However, I'm open to suggestions and to see if theres a better way.