2004.05.27 01:15 "[Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
- 2004.05.27 07:30 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 09:25 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.05.27 10:43 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 12:49 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.05.27 13:05 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.05.27 18:31 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Chris Cox
- 2004.06.01 11:50 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by John Aldridge
- 2004.05.27 16:37 "Re: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.06.04 13:31 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
- 2004.06.09 20:33 "[Tiff] Re: large TIFF - two alternatives", by Steve Carlsen
2004.06.01 16:27 "RE: [Tiff] large TIFF - two alternatives", by Ed Grissom
Let me add my support to the side that wants big-TIFF to be just as general as TIFF is.
If I want a restricted format, I can write in NITF which supports up to 18 GB right now.
As far as Endian issues, lets share the pain, and don't put it all on one platform to have to swap. As the number of multibyte sensors grows, I can see that all of my work in a few years will be 16bit/band image or greater. This will require swapping every pixel value all the time on read and write. Let me write what is convenient for my platform and read whatever is thrown at me.
ed grissom
egrissom@ziimaging.com