You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The unfortunate bit is all the offsets are u64. That means either using u64 for all offsets in the crates public API, even for "small TIFFs", or using generics so the API can be strongly typed to be either u64 or u32, etc.
I am happy to have a go at adding BigTiff support, as I have been doing this for a few other TIFF/EXIF crates, however I am guessing that you have some strong opinions on which approach should be taken, and I dont have a preference.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigapixel_image are becoming more common now, and BigTiff variant is a common way to store them. c.f. http://bigtiff.org/#FILE_FORMAT and https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000328.shtml
Most tools and libraries support BigTiff transparently these days, as it is fairly easy to detect and parse.
It was added to exiftool in 2007
The "tiff" crate supports them - c.f. https://github.com/image-rs/image-tiff/blob/ff52aea/src/decoder/mod.rs#L438 for the header detection code there, which is the easy part.
The unfortunate bit is all the offsets are u64. That means either using u64 for all offsets in the crates public API, even for "small TIFFs", or using generics so the API can be strongly typed to be either u64 or u32, etc.
I am happy to have a go at adding BigTiff support, as I have been doing this for a few other TIFF/EXIF crates, however I am guessing that you have some strong opinions on which approach should be taken, and I dont have a preference.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: