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 Max Martinez
2000.03.31 17:05 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri
2000.03.31 18:07 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Max Martinez
2000.03.31 18:12 "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 17:05 "RE: Complex Floating Point", by Antonio E. Scuri

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