AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2003.09.01 11:49 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by =?iso-8859-15?B?VuRpbvYgSuRydmVs5A==?=
2003.09.01 19:17 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by Pushkar Pradhan
2003.09.02 05:43 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by =?iso-8859-15?B?VuRpbvYgSuRydmVs5A==?=
2003.09.01 20:02 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by Frank Warmerdam
2003.09.02 05:46 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by =?iso-8859-15?B?VuRpbvYgSuRydmVs5A==?=
2003.09.02 10:13 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by =?iso-8859-15?B?VuRpbvYgSuRydmVs5A==?=

2003.09.02 05:46 "[Tiff] Reading and writing to memory.", by =?iso-8859-15?B?VuRpbvYgSuRydmVs5A==?=

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 16:02:30 -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

V�in� J�rvel� wrote:

Is there anything specific i have to do in those procs? Return a specific value on the first run or something?

Vaino,

There are indeed fairly detailed semantics required of the IO functions. I don't know that these assumptions are well documented anywhere. You might be best off reviewing existing low level implementations carefully if you want to make your own.

I'll have to do that, yes.

There are already at least two memory based TIFF implementations for libtiff. in contrib/mfs there is one. I also have one I use as part of GDAL, based loosely on mfs.

I'll check them out for anything that i might have missed in my implementation. Thanks.

I can't help but wonder though if your overall approach is appropriate. Why is it that you need to hold your whole image in memory? Why not operate on the image in chunks as Pushkar suggests?

Replied to Pushkar.

>
> Best regards,
>
> --

> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, 
> warmerdam@pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

>
>

--
V�in� J�rvel�