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
> 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.
> 3. No form of parallelism of the cutting procedure is assumed, 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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk