[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #73: r.out.gdal tiff output does not work

[Dylan Beaudette]

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 at 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 at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at 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