-
2012.07.11 21:35 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2012.07.11 23:47 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Olivier Paquet
-
2012.07.12 09:44 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
- 2012.07.12 09:57 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Jorge Martin
-
2012.07.12 09:44 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Joris Van Damme
-
2012.07.11 23:47 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Olivier Paquet
2012.07.11 23:47 "Re: [Tiff] Doubts about Strip and Tile Oriented read/write TIFF files", by Olivier Paquet
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
>> multiple of the size of the image. I understand
that the strip/tile that are not full of data, will be filled with 0s by > libtiff when the Tile/Strip are read. And this Strip/Tile should be filled with 0s before call to libtiff > (TIFFWriteEncodedStrip/TIFFWriteEncodedTile). Are these
> assumptions correct?
I think so. Tiles are always full rectangles even if they refer to
unused area.
Indeed. However, I would not count on libtiff zeroing the unused area when reading the file. I also seem to remember (not 100% sure though) the data in the unused area having an effect on compressed file size so I think it is given "as is" to the compressor. Obviously, it's better if you put zeroes there.
Olivier