LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
May 2006

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems

Thread

2006.05.25 17:24 "libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Thomas Sharpless

2006.05.30 08:42 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Gerben Vos

2006.05.30 18:04 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Chris Cox

2006.06.01 03:42 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Joris Van Damme

2006.06.01 04:09 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Chris Cox

2006.06.08 22:27 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Mark R Olin

2006.06.08 23:22 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Joris Van Damme

2006.06.08 18:44 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Frank Warmerdam

2006.06.08 22:27 "Re: libtiff writes zero valued tile offsets and byte counts", by Mark R Olin

Since this is an interesting dialog, and everyone is speculating, I feel
more confident of my speculation. Perhaps it is the case that when Photoshop
reads zero for size and offset, it defaults to the uncompressed case and to
a default size, in which case it can compute a fixed bytecount for each tile
and subsequently compute all tile offsets from a starting point after the
TIFF headersize?

For this to hold of course, the camera software is in fact writing the image
data uncompressed:

>       TIFFSetField( ptiff, TIFFTAG_COMPRESSION, 1 ); // uncompressed

then the guess is possible is it not?

Mark Olin