[GRASS-dev] Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] Setting NODATA to -nan
Yann Chemin
ychemin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 04:02:45 PDT 2015
Hi,
it might be that some communication improvement from GRASS-GDAL could be
done?
is there a clear NODATA/NAN definition understood within GDAL that we could
use within r.out.gdal as a target NODATA value whenever anything than a
number is used (i.e. NaN, nan, -nan, helloworld, mynameisbee, etc.)
typically MODIS users are used to -28768 and similar "standard" NODATA
numbers, but that maybe another story.
0.01c
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:34 PM Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> FWD of an issue with r.out.gdal in G7. Any ideas?
>
> Markus
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
> Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:07 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [gdal-dev] Setting NODATA to -nan
> To: neteler at osgeo.org
>
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> Below you'll find the original report about what discussed on the way to
> the
> party tonight, and then my analysis. The GDAL ticket with the dataset is
> https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/6036
>
> I'm not sure there's really an issue in practice on the GDAL side. It is
> just
> that dealing with nan is odd to anybody (and the way Windows and Linux
> displays nan as a string is different).
>
> Even
>
>
>
>
> [gdal-dev] Setting NODATA to -nan
> From: Homme Zwaagstra <hrz at geodata.soton.ac.uk>
> To: gdal-dev <gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Date: Yesterday 11:21:54
> Hello,
>
> I've got the following raster exported from GRASS using `r.out.gdal`:
>
> gdalinfo ppp-2015.tif
> Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF
> Files: ppp-2015.tif
> ppp-2015.tif.aux.xml
> Size is 432017, 216009
> Coordinate System is:
> GEOGCS["WGS 84",
> DATUM["WGS_1984",
> SPHEROID["WGS 84",6378137,298.257223563,
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]],
> PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],
> UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","4326"]]
> Origin = (-180.000000000000000,90.000000000000000)
> Pixel Size = (0.000833300541414,-0.000833298612558)
> Metadata:
> AREA_OR_POINT=Area
> Image Structure Metadata:
> COMPRESSION=DEFLATE
> INTERLEAVE=BAND
> Corner Coordinates:
> Upper Left (-180.0000000, 90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"W, 90d 0' 0.00"N)
> Lower Left (-180.0000000, -90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"W, 90d 0' 0.00"S)
> Upper Right ( 180.0000000, 90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"E, 90d 0' 0.00"N)
> Lower Right ( 180.0000000, -90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"E, 90d 0' 0.00"S)
> Center ( 0.0000000, 0.0000000) ( 0d 0' 0.01"E, 0d 0' 0.01"N)
> Band 1 Block=256x256 Type=Float32, ColorInterp=Gray
> NoData Value=nan
> Metadata:
> COLOR_TABLE_RULES_COUNT=5
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_0=0.000000e+00 1.681282e+03 255 255 0 0 255 0
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_1=1.681282e+03 3.362563e+03 0 255 0 0 255 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_2=3.362563e+03 5.043845e+03 0 255 255 0 0 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_3=5.043845e+03 6.725127e+03 0 0 255 255 0 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_4=6.725127e+03 8.406408e+03 255 0 255 255 0 0
> Generated_with=GRASS GIS 7.0.0
>
> As you can see the NoData is set to `nan`. However, within the data it is
> actually `-nan`:
>
> gdallocationinfo ppp-2015.tif -wgs84 42.0776 30.9305
> Report:
> Location: (266503P,70886L)
> Band 1:
> Value: -nan
>
> I have tried to force the NoData to `-nan` as follows but with no joy:
>
> gdal_translate -a_nodata '-nan' -of VRT ppp-2015.tif ppp-2015.vrt
>
> gdalinfo ppp-2015.vrt
> Driver: VRT/Virtual Raster
> Files: ppp-2015.vrt
> /data/data/ppp_v2c_2015/ppp-2015.tif
> Size is 432017, 216009
> Coordinate System is:
> GEOGCS["WGS 84",
> DATUM["WGS_1984",
> SPHEROID["WGS 84",6378137,298.257223563,
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","7030"]],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","6326"]],
> PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],
> UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","4326"]]
> Origin = (-180.000000000000000,90.000000000000000)
> Pixel Size = (0.000833300541414,-0.000833298612558)
> Metadata:
> AREA_OR_POINT=Area
> Image Structure Metadata:
> INTERLEAVE=BAND
> Corner Coordinates:
> Upper Left (-180.0000000, 90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"W, 90d 0' 0.00"N)
> Lower Left (-180.0000000, -90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"W, 90d 0' 0.00"S)
> Upper Right ( 180.0000000, 90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"E, 90d 0' 0.00"N)
> Lower Right ( 180.0000000, -90.0000000) (180d 0' 0.00"E, 90d 0' 0.00"S)
> Center ( 0.0000000, 0.0000000) ( 0d 0' 0.01"E, 0d 0' 0.01"N)
> Band 1 Block=128x128 Type=Float32, ColorInterp=Gray
> NoData Value=nan
> Metadata:
> COLOR_TABLE_RULES_COUNT=5
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_0=0.000000e+00 1.681282e+03 255 255 0 0 255 0
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_1=1.681282e+03 3.362563e+03 0 255 0 0 255 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_2=3.362563e+03 5.043845e+03 0 255 255 0 0 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_3=5.043845e+03 6.725127e+03 0 0 255 255 0 255
> COLOR_TABLE_RULE_RGB_4=6.725127e+03 8.406408e+03 255 0 255 255 0 0
> Generated_with=GRASS GIS 7.0.0
>
> Even editing the VRT to contain `<NoDataValue>-nan</NoDataValue>` yields a
> positive nan value in gdalinfo.
>
> This looks like it might be a GDAL bug to me? Is there a way I can specify
> `-nan` as the NODATA value for this dataset without regenerating it
> (it's quite
> large)?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Homme
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] Setting NODATA to -nan
> Date: Wednesday 15 July 2015, 20:02:11
> From: Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
> To: Homme Zwaagstra <hrz at geodata.soton.ac.uk>
> CC: gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>
>
> > Thanks Even,
> >
> > I have submitted <https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/6036> with an
> > attached TIFF
> > infested with `-nan` values.
> >
> > While researching this I cam across this question
> > <http://stackoverflow.com/q/3772835> which might contain some
> information of
> > interest.
>
> Hum looking more closely at representation of nan values in IEEE754, there
> is
> at least 12 million different ways of representing nan for a 32bit floating
> point value. And you can indeed have signed NaN... But I'm not sure it is
> really useful to set "-nan" as the declared nodata value (it is stored as a
> string in GeoTIFF) since even 2 NaN values that could be printed in text
> form
> as "-nan" could have a different binary representation.
>
> The parts of GDAL that test pixel values against nodata have normally a
> special behaviour to test the pixel values against nodata, when the nodata
> value is one of the NaN values, so I wouldn't expect this apparent
> inconsistency to cause problems
>
> For example when running gdalinfo -stats on your file, I get :
>
> ERROR 1: negative-nan-example.tif, band 1: Failed to compute statistics, no
> valid pixels found in sampling.
>
> Which is expected since all pixels are set to nan (-nan yeah...), so
> ComputeStatistics() actually managed to match the declared nan with the
> -nan
> as pixel values. (which is quite ironical since a property of nan is that
> nan
> != nan, but here nan ~= -nan ;-) )
>
> Did you run into particular problems beyond this apparent mismatch ?
>
> Even
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
> -----------------------------------------
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20150717/13f5775c/attachment.html>
More information about the grass-dev
mailing list