Hi again, Joseph, Looking at the version in question and when it was released, I see that it would pre-date the current get_dimensions() behavior, so that doesn't appear to be the problem.
If you're comfortable building things from source, could you try checking out the current version of the source code and seeing if that fixes the problem? (Please feel free to ask for help with this if you need it.) Off the cuff, I'm inclined to suspect you've happened upon some alternate case of http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/3067, but since you haven't edited these, that doesn't seem quite right... Cheers, -c On 2/29/12, Joseph Bylund <[email protected]> wrote: >>> If you start Shotwell with a dummy library (e.g. 'shotwell -d foo') > and import just those photos, are the orientation and dimensions correct? > Yes. > >>> What version of Shotwell are you running? > 0.11.6-0ubuntu0.1 > I have the yorba ppa in my repo, but is that the most recent? > or --version reports "Shotwell 0.11.6". > >>> What operating system version are you running? > Linux poseidon 3.0.0-16-generic #28-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 27 17:44:39 UTC > 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description: Ubuntu 11.10 > Release: 11.10 > Codename: oneiric > >>> Have you made any edits to these photos in Shotwell? Have you edited > them in an external editor? > I believe no to both, but I'm not 100%. > > On 02/29/2012 03:26 PM, Clinton Rogers wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Please pardon my intruding upon this thread, but this sounds very >> similar to http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4747 . If you can tell us >> more about what version of Shotwell you're running, and, if you're >> using trunk, what commit you're on*, that will provide a huge clue. >> >> In the Shotwell code, there is a function named get_dimensions() that >> takes, among other arguments, a flag that tells it whether to take >> into account EXIF orientation or not when computing the width and >> height of a given image, and another function named >> get_raw_dimensions() that returns the width and height of an image >> before any orientation changes or editing are taken into account >> (they're pulled directly from the image). My guess is that somewhere, >> a call to get_dimensions() is being told not to respect the >> orientation when it in fact should or we're using get_raw_dimensions() >> in a place where get_dimensions() is needed, which would explain why >> the values you see for the width and height of your affected photos >> are (sort of) correct, but reversed (along with stretching or >> squashing). >> >> Cheers, >> -c >> >> * this can be determined by going to where you've checked out the >> Shotwell source code and typing 'git log', then looking at the topmost >> entry in the resulting text, which will usually be something like >> 'commit <long hexadecimal number here>'. The hexadecimal number is >> what we're interested in. >> >> On 2/29/12, Adam Dingle <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Joseph, >>> >>> On 02/28/2012 09:45 PM, Joseph Bylund wrote: >>>> When I view my library some portrait photos are stretched to landscape >>>> dimensions, such that people are very wide (i.e. right orientation, >>>> wrong dimensions). Weirdly when I double click these the orientation is >>>> wrong but the dimensions are right. Rotating again gives me short >>>> people sideways in the overview and normal people correctly oriented if >>>> I double click. >>> >>> What version of Shotwell are you running? What operating system version >>> are you running? Have you made any edits to these photos in Shotwell? >>> Have you edited them in an external editor? If you start Shotwell with >>> a dummy library (e.g. 'shotwell -d foo') and import just those photos, >>> are the orientation and dimensions correct? >>> >>>> Somewhat unrelated, can I reset my password on the redmine site if I >>>> know only my username (i.e. no email, but I'm sure I'll get the message >>>> if an email is sent to the address I registered with). >>> >>> No. I'll send you a private email message with your registered email >>> address. >>> >>> adam > > -- > Joseph Bylund > March 1, 2012 > Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few > pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. > Douglas Adams > > _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
