On 2014-09-21 David Strip wrote:
> On 9/20/2014 9:02 AM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>
> > Adding an extra parameter seems to be fixing this:
> > dstile = self.mem_drv.Create('', self.tilesize, self.tilesize,
> > tilebands, gdal.GDT_UInt16)
> > (applied to all 'mem_drv.Create' occurrences)
> >
> > But the final tif has most likely incorrect metadata as its
> > reading via jai-imageio fails:
> > ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 256
> >
> > (Despite the Ok result when reading the tiling source image
> > using the same method)
>
> Looking back at the code, the actual output file is created with
> this line:
> self.out_drv.CreateCopy(tilefilename, dstile, strict=0)
Hmm, I have no idea how to pass this info into CreateCopy:
http://www.gdal.org/classGDALDriver.html
> If this still doesn't fix it, the first thing to do is run gdalinfo
> against one of the tiles and let us know the result.
Thanks for the hint. I've checked the tiling source (correct file):
...
Metadata:
AREA_OR_POINT=Area
Image Structure Metadata:
INTERLEAVE=BAND
Corner Coordinates:
...
Band 1 Block=256x256 Type=Int16, ColorInterp=Gray
NoData Value=0
While my tile is:
...
Image Structure Metadata:
INTERLEAVE=PIXEL
Corner Coordinates:
...
Band 1 Block=256x8 Type=UInt16, ColorInterp=Gray
Band 2 Block=256x8 Type=UInt16, ColorInterp=Undefined
I've changed UInt16 to Int16, but in this case there are 'ERROR 1: Buffer
too small' errors when tiles are produced (but they are somehow generated
anyway). It fixes the type to Int16, but there are still some differences.
What exactly is 'Block=256x256' and is 'Block=256x8' in the second case
correct?
Are other differences cosmetic or fatal ones?
Thanks, Jan
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
