LibTiff Mailing List
TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
February 2006
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Previous by Thread
Next by Thread
Previous by Date
Next by Date
Contact
The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
This list is run by Frank Warmerdam
Archive maintained by AWare Systems
Thread
2006.02.07 16:27 "Re: Mega newbie question", by Joris Van Damme
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > I'm not too sure why count is declared uint16 here... It should be > > uint32 if you ask me. Plenty of tags have potentially over 64K of > > data, and in any case, the count in tags in actual file normal > > TIFF (not BigTIFF) is unsigned 32bit. I'm also unsure why > > datatype is not > > BTFW libtiff 3.8.0 has a dreadful bug in that several of these tags > are treated like the length value is 16 bit when it should actually be > 32 bit. I can't recommend that anyone use libtiff 3.8.0. CVS libtiff > has the fix, and libtiff 3.7.4 does not exhibit the symptom. Yes, I seem to remember something about that... Though I've missed a final conclusion. There was a question as to whether we should use 3.8.0 + patch (http://www.asmail.be/msg0054784395.html), or wait for 3.8.1, but I missed an answer to that question. I wish to make clear that the problem I'm talking about is not that the Photoshop tag can have a count >64K. Thus, the problem is not fixed by redefining the Photoshop tag handling. Instead, the problem I'm talking about is that *any* so-called auto-registered tag can have a count >64K. Thus, the problem can only be fixed by redefining that count to uint32 for all so-called auto-registered tag, and preferably not redefining any specific tags like Photoshop tag at all. This may not be relevant, and/or fixed already, I haven't been paying much attention lately. Joris Van Damme info@awaresystems.be http://www.awaresystems.be/ Download your free TIFF tag viewer for windows here: http://www.awaresystems.be/imaging/tiff/astifftagviewer.html