- 2004.09.16 19:23 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.09.16 22:39 "[Tiff] Re: BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Ian Ameline
-
2004.09.17 00:09 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 00:32 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 01:54 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 02:29 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 03:08 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 04:20 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 04:39 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 11:25 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 14:31 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 11:25 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 05:46 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.09.17 11:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 13:11 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 15:55 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
- 2004.09.17 16:00 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2004.09.17 16:13 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 16:43 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 21:41 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 15:55 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
-
2004.09.17 15:10 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 11:40 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.17 11:38 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
-
2004.09.17 04:39 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Chris Cox
-
2004.09.17 04:20 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2004.09.17 06:35 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Rob van den Tillaart
-
2004.09.17 01:54 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2004.09.17 00:32 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
- 2004.09.19 12:31 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Andrey Kiselev
- 2004.09.19 16:43 "Re: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Joris Van Damme
2004.09.17 15:55 "RE: [Tiff] BigTIFF Tag Value Count issue", by Fernando Loygorri
Some possible implementation languages do not even support unsigned types.
That's what I meant: Java is one of them.
Is there an alternative to using unsigned 64-bit values to access large data?
There is a standard class, BigInteger, that is of arbitrary size. Unfortunately, using objects like BigInteger instead of primitives like long is slower and clumsier.
By using unsigned 64-bit values in BigTIFF instead of unsigned 32-bit values in TIFF, we increase the range by a factor of 2^32.
By using signed 64-bit values in BigTIFF, which are equivalent to unsigned 63-bit values, the range would increase by a factor of 2^31, still a very respectable value.
Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that negative 64-bit values should have any meaning. They should be outlawed by the spec. I'm proposing that the spec outlaw values with the most-significant bit set, and this only to accommodate languages like Java that have a 64-bit signed type but no 64-bit unsigned type.
Regards,
FGL