Re: [boost] GIL io_new review

Subject: Re: [boost] GIL io_new review
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-09 10:16:48

"Mateusz Loskot" <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4D00DA5D.3040400_at_loskot.net...
> 1. Which raster are we taking from the True Marble Imagery?

The largest one ( TrueMarble.250m. 21600x21600.E2.tif.gz 628MB) ?

> 2. To keep things simpler, let's cut the raster to even tiles.
> For example, tiles of 200x200 pixels
> This will give us constant number of 11664 tiles for 21600x21600 raster.

OK.

> 3. No form of parallelism of the cutting procedure is assumed, right?

Right.

> 4. Cutting TIFF to PNG involves compression. If we are interested in 
> raster access, RIO, I/O speed, perhaps we could stick to TIFF as output 
> format as well. What you think?

That depends on what exactly are we trying to test here, the C++ wrappers 
(e.g. io_new vs io2) and/or the backends (e.g. LibTIFF vs WIC) and/or 
something third...

Are you sure the TrueMarble GeoTIFFs are uncompressed?

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman