AWARE SYSTEMS
TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive

Thread

2011.04.18 17:42 "[Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Ashish Uthama
2011.04.19 12:47 "[Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Ashish Uthama
2011.04.19 13:51 "[Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Ashish Uthama
2011.04.19 14:27 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Olivier Paquet
2011.04.19 15:19 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam
2011.04.19 15:35 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam
2011.04.19 15:46 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam
2011.04.21 13:02 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Ashish Uthama
2011.04.24 13:50 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam
2011.04.25 20:40 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam
2011.05.06 14:16 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by

2011.04.19 15:19 "Re: [Tiff] WhiteLevel with 3.9.5", by Edward Lam

On 4/18/2011 1:42 PM, Ashish Uthama wrote:

Based on the comment (510-517), and the description for the tag, I added TIFFTAG_WHITELEVEL after line 505 to skip the memcpy and use the else block to process it.

Offhand, I would say no because TIFFTAG_WHITELEVEL is defined as a variable count matching the samples per pixel while those other tags (eg TIFFTAG_PAGENUMBER) use a fixed count.

If we examine the definition for TIFFTAG_WHITELEVEL (or TIFFTAG_BLACKLEVEL) in tif_dirinfo.c, it's using TIFF_VARIABLE(-1) for its field_readcount and field_writecount values. Given the description of those tags, shouldn't the field_{readcount,writecount} values be TIFF_SPP(-2) instead?

Regards,

-Edward