On Friday 24 October 2008, Helena Mitasova wrote: > On Oct 24, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Moritz Lennert wrote: > > On 24/10/08 14:10, Markus Metz wrote: > >> GRASS GIS wrote: > >>> #73: r.out.gdal tiff output does not work > >>> -------------------------- > >>> +------------------------------------------------- > >>> Reporter: helena | Owner: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > >>> Type: defect | Status: > >>> new Priority: critical | > >>> Milestone: 6.4.0 Component: Raster > >>> > >>> | Version: svn-trunk > >>> > >>> Resolution: | Keywords: r.out.gdal, > >>> tiff Platform: Unspecified | Cpu: > >>> Unspecified -------------------------- > >>> +------------------------------------------------- > >>> Comment (by neteler): > >>> > >>> Markus (Metz), > >>> > >>> what about integrating your fixes from > >>> http://markus.metz.giswork.googlepages.com/ > >>> r.out.gdal.conservative.tar.gz > >>> ? > >>> > >>> Markus > >> > >> Sure, no objections from my side, I'm using this version only. But > >> r.out.gdal is a very important module of GRASS and maybe some more > >> testing is required. Also, the new features may not find approval by > >> all, e.g. I've put in rather restrictive NULL cell handling: the user > >> has to specify a nodata value that falls within the range of the > >> selected datatype (Byte, UInt16, Int16, ...), a nodata value is no > >> longer chosen automatically as in the original version. If a nodata > >> value is not given, but NULL cells are present, r.out.gdal aborts > >> with > >> an error message. My version also no longer uses the current region > >> resolution, instead the current region extends are aligned to the > >> resolution of the raster to be exported to avoid any implicit > >> resampling. And the colortable is only exported on request, and then > >> with a warning message. > >> If these changes are ok with you then integrate the changes, > >> otherwise > >> maybe only some, but not all changes could be integrated. More > >> discussion needed on how to change/improve r.out.gdal? > > > > +1 for all of these changes. Let's try with those and then discuss. > > > > Moritz > > I think those are useful changes and agree with Moritz that we should > try them out. > maybe add it to svn as r.out.gdal2 so that we can test and compare > with the old one > and then replace if there are no problems? It would be a huge help to > get this resolved, > > Helena
+1 from me. I once it is in the 64 branch I can do some testing. Dylan > > _______________________________________________ > > grass-dev mailing list > > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev > > _______________________________________________ > grass-dev mailing list > grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev -- Dylan Beaudette Soil Resource Laboratory http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/ University of California at Davis 530.754.7341 _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev