[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17763673#comment-17763673
 ] 

Gary D. Gregory commented on IMAGING-316:
-----------------------------------------

(y)

> Support the BigTIFF file format
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IMAGING-316
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-316
>             Project: Commons Imaging
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>    Affects Versions: 1.x
>            Reporter: Gary Lucas
>            Priority: Major
>
> Traditional TIFF files address file position in bytes using 32-bit integers.  
> This approach automatically limits the maximum size of a TIFF file to 4 GB.  
> The BigTIFF specification (formalized in 2011) uses 64-bit integers to 
> address file positions, and thus supports much larger files.  I propose that 
> a future release of Commons Imaging would benefit from supporting BigTIFF.
> The level of effort for this implementation may be large. 
> In terms of creating JUnit tests to support this effort, note that just 
> because a file uses the BigTIFF specification doesn't mean that the file has 
> to be super large. It should be possible to create BigTIFF test files that 
> are only a few kilobytes.  Thus supporting BigTIFF does not necessarily mean 
> that massive files will need to be included in the Commons Imaging 
> distribution.
> Finally, it is reasonable to ask if anyone would actually need images that 
> were so large that they couldn't fit within 4 GB.   The short answer is that 
> some folks in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) community do work with 
> images (or data sets) that large and, also, that some systems produce images 
> in BigTIFF format even when ordinary TIFF would suffice.
>  
> P.S. It might be work investigating whether the existing Imaging library 
> actually supports the full 32-bit address space of a conventional TIFF.  
> Regrettably,  Java doesn't support unsigned integer types.  And it is 
> possible that a file address with the high bit set might be incorrectly 
> interpreted as a negative number.  So I will be taking a look at the code to 
> make sure all file addresses are properly masked when they are handed over to 
> Java.
>  
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to