2008.05.23 18:55 "[Tiff] Unitialized Variable Caused a Problem in TIFFCP", by Gene Amtower

2008.05.24 15:34 "Re: [Tiff] Unitialized Variable Caused a Problem in TIFFCP", by Bob Friesenhahn

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Gene Amtower wrote:

I can't share any of the files because they're customer material, but here's a copy of the tiffinfo output from one of them...

TIFF Directory at offset 0x2267c
    Subfile Type: (0 = 0x0)
    Image Width: 6904 Image Length: 4888
    Resolution: 200, 200 pixels/inch
    Compression Scheme: CCITT Group 4
    Photometric Interpretation: min-is-white
    FillOrder: msb-to-lsb
    Make: "Alpharel Incorporated"
    Model: "optirastoras"
    Orientation: row 0 top, col 0 lhs
    Rows/Strip: 4888
    Planar Configuration: single image plane

  Software: optirastoras: 1.6.5(beta), 2

I don't see any samples-per-pixel tag in the above output so I expect that the reported libtiff defect is due to using the wrong interface to obtain the tag. The TIFFGetFieldDefaulted() function should be used rather than TIFFGetField(). If TIFFGetField() is used, then it is necessary to verify that the return value is 1 before deciding to use the result.

that's typical, and that's really my question to the list. As TIFF users, does anyone else see this situation--images that don't have a samples/pixel tag? I think it only causes a problem with the transform

This seems to be quite rare, and perhaps violates the TIFF specification.

You mentioned that 3.8.2 is old? That doesn't seem too far from 3.9.0, so has the package been dormant for a little while, or just in an enhancement-bake mode of operation? I guess I should go download the 3.9.0beta code just to see what's different.

3.9.0beta contains important bug fixes. The focus has been on libtiff 4.0, which is a feature release (BigTIFF support).

Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/