Return-Path: <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>
Received: from inas021.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by inav023.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AV-3.00) with ESMTP id l0ICHrdv020077
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:17:53 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from inmx018.isp.belgacom.be (inmx018.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.4.79])
        by inas021.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-AS-2.03) with ESMTP id l0ICHgk5020462
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:17:44 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (r153.dmsolutions.ca [209.217.116.153] (may be forged))
        by inmx018.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id l0ICHcTB014906
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:17:39 +0100
        (envelope-from <tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org>)
Received: from duke.maptools.org (duke.maptools.org [127.0.0.1])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0IC6vIn024375;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:07:10 -0500
Received: from cgp.spb.edu (vlan3.cgp.spb.edu [195.70.196.207])
	by duke.maptools.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l0IC6q2o024366
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:06:52 -0500
Received: from wg.pu.ru ([193.124.85.219] verified)
	by cgp.spb.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.12)
	with ESMTP id 15051284 for tiff@lists.maptools.org;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:05:54 +0300
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by wg.pu.ru (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with UUCP id MAA00177
	for tiff@lists.maptools.org; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:06:12 GMT
Received: from ak4719.spb.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by ak4719.spb.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge3) with ESMTP id
	l0IB9NX1000811
	for <tiff@lists.maptools.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:09:24 +0300
Received: (from dron@localhost)
	by ak4719.spb.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l0IB9NH2000810
	for tiff@lists.maptools.org; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:09:23 +0300
From: Andrey Kiselev <dron@ak4719.spb.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:09:23 +0300
To: tiff@lists.maptools.org
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data
Message-ID: <20070118110923.GA696@ak4719.spb.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: tiff@lists.maptools.org
References: <000901c73a79$61dc2660$22a94057@dfgrrxsknr4e>
	<Pine.SOC.4.60.0701171459540.13644@blade.simplesystems.org>
	<002e01c73a82$9816f7b0$22a94057@dfgrrxsknr4e>
	<Pine.SOC.4.60.0701171610340.13644@blade.simplesystems.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.60.0701171610340.13644@blade.simplesystems.org>
X-GnuPG-Key: http://www.srces.spb.org/dron/export.home.key
X-Face: "t+se9s~+y~[XUH]L|pmeO3Pt/Q@DNv**S, d@_1-C=}/,
	c%<3Qp]eu!ok<"2lYJm$!9qVcg F?7o*L; |$`6|Q|>Rt-cU%2_y@6tQ|`!Li}TsvZvEKx;
	>fuY=fc(=sX^`7Wmw8%SsR`AvM$a; 0U/eN\ P?B\FTyqD, 0np$U2!*'z_4D,
	VPlFf?bN0&zYf"zF0s!7Tl7?$we)xD0@lL>[h|8bhys0i.g|zLnu@C
	Ti@d]i=[!:j1CB\5/TF[m]`lfHfaqSN[0qn@T3zeosV/[LAss{@p_?],x*j8P_9t[}uHD^X-;
	j~\M! gyTly;fj`}&Y~i{<#bN.#QmkE}#T`dxP.I1\.)_MEN{@#W
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Null-Tag: 985392f8d4c31df882b19ba129ba563f
X-BeenThere: tiff@lists.maptools.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.lists.maptools.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/private/tiff>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@lists.maptools.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@lists.maptools.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
Errors-To: tiff-bounces@lists.maptools.org
X-UIDL: 000000000023ceae.00001fc0
X-MSP-STORE: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:17:56 +0100
Status:   

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 04:18:14PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> The TIFF specification is as old as dirt.  Instead of attempting to
> intuit the use of old tags (over which we have no control at all) it
> seems better to define new tags and get them ratified as part of a new
> specification so that when the new tags are present, they may be
> relied upon.
> 
> The discussion up to now has made it very clear that there is little
> that can be done to salvage the existing tags.


I am agree with that statement. The major problem of this discussion is
a mixing of terms STORAGE and REPRESENTATION. TIFF is flexible enough to
store a big range of various datasets. That is why it is used so widely
in scientific applications. But representation of that data is something
completely different from storage. It is not enough to store a pair of
values in addition to numeric matrix to properly visualize it. In first
of all, that matrix can be visualized a number of ways: grayscale or
color encoded raster image, countour map, 3D surface, profile map,
vector map, and other possibilities exist. Usual raster image is just
a one of possible ways to represent data and not always the best.
Actually we can't visualize data without user interaction. We need user
anyway, so storing the range along with the data just useless. Also we
need much more info in addition to range: calibration, NODATA value (the
code which marks "empty" areas), etc. And hystogram is mandatory anyway.

So I am prefer to leave things as they are now (which works).

Best regards,
Andrey

-- 
Andrey V. Kiselev
ICQ# 26871517
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list: Tiff@lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
http://www.remotesensing.org/libtiff/
