Search found 21 matches
- 2014-09-24T04:12:47-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
If following this thread: see resolution in 'bugs' folder : http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26262 Why have applied a patch that will use FILLORDER_MSB2LSB unless specified otherwise with the 'tiff:fill-order' setting. Thank you for reporting this. The fix will be ...
- 2014-09-22T01:57:35-07:00
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Not complient with TIFF standard
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3805
Re: Not complient with TIFF standard
Thanks very much , I look forward to trying that soon. I also can't quite understand the behaviour of the 'endian' flag, after figuring out that it's the fill-order that is causing trouble I found that if I inculde jsut the +endian flag, it saves in order '1' instead of '2', however this flag is ...
- 2014-09-19T05:54:29-07:00
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Not complient with TIFF standard
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3805
Re: Not complient with TIFF standard
The new version has 'fill order' set to '2' whereas the old version has 'fill order' set to '1' 'Fill order 2' is not supported universally and is not required to be supported by baseline TIFF standard. As my command did not specify any special fill order, there are two possible expected behaviours ...
- 2014-09-19T05:51:50-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
The new version has 'fill order' set to '2' whereas the old version has 'fill order' set to '1' 'Fill order 2' is not supported universally and is not required to be supported by baseline TIFF standard. As my command did not specify any special fill order, there are two possible expected behaviours ...
- 2014-09-18T13:05:55-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
You could download Imagej for free
- 2014-09-18T13:05:08-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
There doesn't seem to be date-specific data causing diff's because the same command shows no diff between the prior result of mine and the result of the command as you suggested without the leading define-quantum-floating business, executed on a different day. I have started deeper investigation of ...
- 2014-09-18T03:11:40-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
I can't (don't know how?) to access this file. I have logged into drobpox and I still get "no permission, you have to log in" messagesnibgo wrote:from32f_out.tiff:
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/from32f_ ... SvULA&dl=1
- 2014-09-18T02:25:25-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
why are we talking about 8bit values?
- 2014-09-18T01:58:43-07:00
- Forum: Bugs
- Topic: Not complient with TIFF standard
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3805
Not complient with TIFF standard
with quoteDifferent behaviour between installation versions HI, I have a command that was working to give the correct ressult, I have compiled the current version of ImageMagick and now it gives a wrong result. The command converts a 32-bit floating point TIFF in which the values lie in the range 0 ...
- 2014-09-18T01:48:14-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
They are not identical. $ diff image_from_version_6.7.5.10.tif image_from_version_6.8.9.7.tif Binary files image_from_version_6.7.5.10.tif and image_from_version_6.8.9.7.tif differ Because you are using ImageMagick to compare the values that ImageMagick reads in the images, you are getting the same ...
- 2014-09-17T14:36:00-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
Snibgo said:, So we need to divide by 4365/0.0666056 = 65536 (more or less). That is what I said in the first place before the discussion about the handling of quantization. Here is the command: convert -define quantum:format=floating-point projections/p_00000.tif -evaluate divide 65536.0 -define ...
- 2014-09-17T10:50:14-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
But when I examine input_image.tif: %IM32f%identify -verbose input_image.tif I get: Channel statistics: Gray: min: 0 (0) max: 1.87475e+13 (4365) mean: 3.77842e+12 (879.731) standard deviation: 2.69001e+12 (626.316) kurtosis: -1.1503 The mean value is about 3 million million, which is substantially ...
- 2014-09-17T10:35:44-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
okay .. but it's ImageMagick that is telling you this? I placed a screenshot of ImageJ opening that same file displaying the value at a test point of 2017.0 as expected (in the same FTP folder) Why did I get the desired output in version 6.7.5-10 ? This is the burning question. If the image is ...
- 2014-09-17T09:46:12-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
The results of the command originally mentioned: convert -define quantum:format=floating-point input_image.tif -evaluate divide 65536.0 -define quantum:format=integer -depth 16 image_from_version_6.7.5.10.tif and the same command using version 6.8.9.7 ; along with the input image, are on the ftp ...
- 2014-09-17T09:25:17-07:00
- Forum: Developers
- Topic: Different behaviour between installation versions
- Replies: 24
- Views: 15333
Re: Different behaviour between installation versions
That command results in an image with value 65535 everywhere.