[gdal-dev] gdaladdo creates very large files in 1.8 but not trunk

Eli Adam eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
Fri Apr 15 05:01:12 EDT 2011


>>  I'm not aware of any recent change in the GTiff driver that could have 
>> "solved" 
>> the issue you've seen. This is a bit surprising.
>> 
>> Could you also try with the -stable builds (based on 1.8 branch) from 
>> http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/ to compare ?
> 
> I am trying it with, 
> http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/PackageList.aspx?file=release-1500-gdal-1-8-mapserver-5- 
> 6.zip 
> 
> Although not finished, based on progress so far, it looks to be working 
> properly and on track to create a 3G ovr.  That is consistent with trunk.  
> I'll provide more information when it finishes.  

Yes, this produced the expected results.  Here is some information on that, (comments of creation included too)

E:\Orthos>dir mosaic_ycbcr_big*
04/06/2011  11:24 AM     7,780,934,363 mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif
04/11/2011  08:43 PM     3,262,697,247 mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif.ovr (created from svn a few days ago on ubuntu)
04/06/2011  11:24 AM     7,780,934,363 mosaic_ycbcr_big_1_8.tif 
04/14/2011  09:47 PM     3,260,246,941 mosaic_ycbcr_big_1_8.tif.ovr (created from http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/PackageList.aspx?file=release-1500-gdal-1-8-mapserver-5-6.zip downloaded today or yesterday)
04/06/2011  11:24 AM     7,780,934,363 mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif
04/07/2011  03:55 AM   385,580,179,214 mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif.ovr (Created from OSGEO4W 1.8.0)
04/06/2011  11:24 AM     7,780,934,363 mosaic_ycbcr_big_win.tif
04/12/2011  08:17 PM     3,260,246,941 mosaic_ycbcr_big_win.tif.ovr (created from a trunk version download from Tamas's site from a few days ago)

gdalinfo for mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif and mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif produces identical results (diff'ed).  Here is one for reference.
Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF
Files: mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif
       mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif.ovr
Size is 141400, 280500
Coordinate System is:
PROJCS["NAD83(HARN) / Oregon North (ft)",
    GEOGCS["NAD83(HARN)",
        DATUM["NAD83_High_Accuracy_Regional_Network",
            SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.2572221010002,
                AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]],
            AUTHORITY["EPSG","6152"]],
        PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],
        UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
        AUTHORITY["EPSG","4152"]],
    PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic_2SP"],
    PARAMETER["standard_parallel_1",46],
    PARAMETER["standard_parallel_2",44.33333333333334],
    PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",43.66666666666666],
    PARAMETER["central_meridian",-120.5],
    PARAMETER["false_easting",8202099.738],
    PARAMETER["false_northing",0],
    UNIT["foot",0.3048,
        AUTHORITY["EPSG","9002"]],
    AUTHORITY["EPSG","2913"]]
Origin = (7255000.000467186800000,522299.999999974850000)
Pixel Size = (1.000000000000018,-1.000000000000018)
Metadata:
  AREA_OR_POINT=Area
Image Structure Metadata:
  SOURCE_COLOR_SPACE=YCbCr
  COMPRESSION=YCbCr JPEG
  INTERLEAVE=PIXEL
Corner Coordinates:
Upper Left  ( 7255000.000,  522300.000) (124d 9'55.56"W, 45d 2'25.33"N)
Lower Left  ( 7255000.000,  241800.000) (124d 7' 0.72"W, 44d16'18.24"N)
Upper Right ( 7396400.000,  522300.000) (123d37' 7.62"W, 45d 3'23.93"N)
Lower Right ( 7396400.000,  241800.000) (123d34'38.80"W, 44d17'16.07"N)
Center      ( 7325700.000,  382050.000) (123d52'10.27"W, 44d39'52.08"N)
Band 1 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Red
  Overviews: 70700x140250, 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210
x4383, 1105x2192
Band 2 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Green
  Overviews: 70700x140250, 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210
x4383, 1105x2192
Band 3 Block=256x256 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Blue
  Overviews: 70700x140250, 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210
x4383, 1105x2192


gdalinfo for mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif.ovr and mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif.ovr produces identical results.  Here for reference too.

Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF
Files: mosaic_ycbcr_big_addo_v2.tif.ovr
Size is 70700, 140250
Coordinate System is `'
Image Structure Metadata:
  SOURCE_COLOR_SPACE=YCbCr
  COMPRESSION=YCbCr JPEG
  INTERLEAVE=PIXEL
Corner Coordinates:
Upper Left  (    0.0,    0.0)
Lower Left  (    0.0,140250.0)
Upper Right (70700.0,    0.0)
Lower Right (70700.0,140250.0)
Center      (35350.0,70125.0)
Band 1 Block=128x128 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Red
  Overviews: 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210x4383, 1105x21
92
Band 2 Block=128x128 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Green
  Overviews: 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210x4383, 1105x21
92
Band 3 Block=128x128 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Blue
  Overviews: 35350x70125, 17675x35063, 8838x17532, 4419x8766, 2210x4383, 1105x21
92

I can run more tests, although for results you will have to wait since it takes a long time to run these.  Wait, this is easier, it is reproducible with OSGEO4W 1.8.0 and http://svn.osgeo.org/gdal/trunk/autotest/warp/data/test3658.tif  (I don't know what this tif is designed to test, so hopefully it isn't causing problems.)

C:\Documents and Settings\eadam\Desktop>gdaladdo -ro test3658.tif 2
0...10...20...30...40...50...60...70...80...90...100 - done.

dir test*
04/15/2011  01:32 AM             8,071 test3658.tif
04/15/2011  01:32 AM            49,568 test3658.tif.ovr

Once again, I get normal sized results from trunk.  I only get consistently unexpectedly large files in OSGEO4W 1.8.  I do not get consistently expected or unexpected results from a recent 1.8 from Tamas's site.  That may depend on whether it is a BIG_TIFF or not and whether the designation of BIG_TIFF was correct.  I'll try looking into that more later.  

Preliminarily it seems that with recent 1.8 from Tamas's site, the results are as expected when BIG_TIFF is specified and correct and otherwise, the results are unexpectedly large.  I have some long running operations right now and need to reboot before looking into this more.  It may be a few days for a reboot opportunity.   

Bests, Eli


> 
> Eli
> 
> 
>> 
>>> This is an informational report only, there are not problems in trunk.
>>> 
>>> Using 1.8.0 from OSGeo4W on XP, I made a mosaic of about 1200 uncompressed
>>> tifs totally 80G.
>>> 
>>> gdalbuildvrt mosaic.vrt *.tif
>>> 
>>> Then gdal_translated that to a compressed tif of about 8G
>>> 
>>> gdal_translate mosaic.vrt mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif -co COMPRESS=JPEG -co
>>> PHOTOMETRIC=YCBCR -co TILED=YES -co BIGTIFF=YES --config GDAL_CACHEMAX 800
>>> 
>>> Last step was to add some overviews:
>>> 
>>> gdaladdo --config COMPRESS_OVERVIEW JPEG --config PHOTOMETRIC_OVERVIEW
>>> YCBCR --config INTERLEAVE_OVERVIEW PIXEL --config BIGTIFF_OVERVIEW YES
>>> --config GDAL_CACHEMAX 800 -r average -ro mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif 2 4 8 16 32
>>> 64 128
>>> 
>>> It works (at least in OpenEV it displays quickly like it is using
>>> overviews), except the file sizes for the overviews seem odd and too
>>> large.
>>> 
>>> The tiles are about 80G, the result of gdal_translate is 8G, the result of
>>> gdaladdo, mosaic_ycbcr_big.tif.ovr,  is 375G!  That was using 1.8.0.
>>> 
>>> I tested on trunk on ubuntu and XP from here, http://vbkto.dyndns.org/sdk/ 
>>> which produce reasonable results.  The ovr is about 3G.
>>> 
>>> A dif of gdalinfo on the .tif and .ovr are the same.
>>> 
>>> (I hope that is not the result of a typo when I initially typed the
>>> command.  I unfortunately don't have the shell around any more but took
>>> the above listed commands from some notes I took.)
>>> 
>>> I have tried making the overviews internal and external with similar
>>> results.  I also tried making the overviews on the uncompressed files (the
>>> vrt) with the same results.  Then I made the overviews 1 level at a time
>>> and those results seemed reasonable.
>>> 
>>> I didn't find any tickets about this in trac, but don't experience this in
>>> trunk so apparently it is fixed.  Just reporting in case it is useful.
>>> 
>>> Do you want any other information?
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Eli
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gdal-dev mailing list
>>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev 
>> _______________________________________________
>> gdal-dev mailing list
>> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org 
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev 



More information about the gdal-dev mailing list