-
2007.01.17 02:57 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.01.17 08:07 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 15:24 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
-
2007.01.17 16:27 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.01.17 21:51 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:26 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
- 2007.01.17 16:20 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 20:22 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 20:52 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.01.17 19:26 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
-
2007.01.17 21:51 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 22:18 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.01.17 08:07 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 03:35 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2007.01.17 08:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
2007.01.17 15:24 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
It seems difficult to make a completely interoperable image using floating-point samples. I have heard that some software which supports floating-point TIFF checks all the sample values in order to best understand how it should be displayed (assuming it can be reasonably displayed at all).
In practice, you are correct. There's just not much floating point image data written, and the few that do write it aren't always concerned with interchange.
But I do believe there is a consensus emerging, in that the description in my previous message does apply to the biggest part of what is 'out there', and the others have all kinds of ranges and as such don't qualify to derive a consensus from.
What, exactly, is the problem with using SMinSampleValue and SMaxSampleValue for this?
--
ed grissom
ed.grissom@intergraph.com