On 2014-09-23 David Strip wrote: > On 9/22/2014 2:18 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote: > > On 2014-09-21 David Strip wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > What exactly is 'Block=256x256' and is 'Block=256x8' in the second > > case correct? > > The block describes how the pixels are laid out in the file. The fact > that the input and output block sizes are different is not an error. > Likewise, interleave = band vs. pixel is a matter of internal > organization and shouldn't matter. >
Thanks, this led me to a conclusion something was wrong in the Java part. I've investigated related objects and found a different method for reading values for cases with multiple bands in the image. Now everything works as expected. Thanks for patience, Jan _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
