AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2000.03.30 10:53 "Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.30 13:33 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Frank Warmerdam
2000.03.30 13:56 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.30 15:07 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Chris Hanson
2000.03.30 16:44 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.30 19:12 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Cris Luengo
2000.03.31 11:34 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.31 15:14 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Martinez, Max
2000.03.31 18:07 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Martinez, Max
2000.03.31 17:05 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.31 18:12 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.31 18:31 "Fwd: RE: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.04.03 13:12 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Frank Warmerdam
2000.03.31 18:48 "Re: Complex Floating Point", by Daniel McCoy

2000.03.31 18:07 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Martinez, Max

I think people are just getting half this conversation again because I had subscribed to the TIFF list under a different email address.

Anyhow, I think, almost by definition, adding complex to TIFF requires changing the spec. Otherwise there is no specified way to put complex data into a TIFF file, only conventions.

Which image attributes in the current TIFF spec do you see being potentially complex values? Are you talking about private tags?

> -----Original Message-----

>
>
>
> >The second approach would be to put the data all in one

> >sample and signal this with an additional SampleFormat > >value (5 = Complex as a real, imaginary IEEE floating point pair).

> >I don't think it is possible to produce universally understood > >complex without adding to the spec and I am interested

> >in the outcome of this.
>
> I agree with you. In fact my very first solution was to add a new
> SampleFormat value. It makes many things easier.
>
> I was just wondering if we can reach another solution
> without changing
> specs. As you can see this is much more "complex"...
>
> >I don't see yet, however, why you would need an additional
> type (13, 14)
> >as you suggested.
>
> This is because you can have image attributes (Tags) that
> have complex
> values. So also you will need to add values to the FieldType in the
> IFDEntry definition.
>
> scuri
>

-----Original Message-----

> From: Martinez, Max
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:14 AM
> To: 'Antonio E. Scuri'; tiff@olympiakos.com
> Cc: 'warmerda@home.com'