AWARE [SYSTEMS]
AWare Systems, , Home TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive

LibTiff Mailing List

TIFF and LibTiff Mailing List Archive
January 2019

Previous Thread
Next Thread

Previous by Thread
Next by Thread

Previous by Date
Next by Date

Contact

The TIFF Mailing List Homepage
Archive maintained by AWare Systems



New Datamatrix section



Valid HTML 4.01!



Thread

2019.01.13 21:11 "Re: Tiff Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5", by Richard Nolde
2019.01.13 23:12 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by <lists@binarus.de>
2019.01.14 17:44 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by Daniel Mccoy
2019.01.14 17:45 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by Daniel Mccoy
2019.01.15 08:20 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by <lists@binarus.de>
2019.01.15 08:18 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by <lists@binarus.de>

2019.01.15 08:18 "Re: tiffcp altering image contents (in contrast to what the manual says)?", by <lists@binarus.de>

Dear Dan,

thank you very much for this insight.

On 14.01.2019 18:44, Daniel McCoy wrote:
> It might be worthwhile to look at the output of "tiffinfo -s".
> That will show the strip offsets and strip lengths.
> If tiffcp were just compressing out unused gaps in the file, the
> number of strips
> and strip byte counts would be the same, but the strip offsets would
> change.
> If this were the case, you wouldn't even have to make your multi-page
> tiff to check,
> you could just "tiffcp" each of the files individually then compare
> the output of "tiffinfo -s"
> for the before and after versions. If only the offsets change, then
> the actual image data
> is probably not the same and the file has just been "defragmented".

I have followed your advice and have seen that the image data definitely
is changed. Please see my next message with my question reworded and
simplified extremely, and with an example image.

> 
> Why: Some tiff writing programs flush incomplete directories to the
> file while writing.
> As the directory grows in length with strips being added, it has to
> keep being relocated to the end of file,
> leaving unused gaps between some strips. This can happen with programs
> which do not know
> the whole image beforehand and want partial images to be recoverable.
> (Renderer, scanner, ...)
> If this is the case, then running the file through tiffcp essentially
> would perform garbage collection
> on the file, resulting in a smaller file with exactly the same data in it.
> 

Thank you very much for explaining. Unfortunately, this does not seem to
be what is happening ...

Thanks again,

Binarus

_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff