Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9895F200D42 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 23:09:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 97055160BFB; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id DC301160BE6 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 23:09:07 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 42030 invoked by uid 500); 17 Nov 2017 22:09:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: issues@commons.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list issues@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 42019 invoked by uid 99); 17 Nov 2017 22:09:07 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CEDEDC6A82 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.202 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KBXRZtUhpaul for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 6969E5FB06 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1D28DE0ECE for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3E384240EA for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Joakim Knudsen (JIRA)" To: issues@commons.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (IMAGING-205) Imaging (Apache Sanselan) produces "odd offsets" in (EXIF) metadata MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 22:09:08 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-205?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16257653#comment-16257653 ] Joakim Knudsen commented on IMAGING-205: ---------------------------------------- Are you able to reproduce/verify the differences in the two jpeg files (from different manufacturers)? It would be interesting to run the two image files through Commons Imaging, too (as opposed to Sanselan 0.97 which I experiments with), and see if the warnings in the output still varies. Perhaps it is to be expected that different camera makers and different vendor OS will produce differently structured JPEG metadata? But, as long as it's according to standards (validates OK) this library should be able to handle the differences. > Imaging (Apache Sanselan) produces "odd offsets" in (EXIF) metadata > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: IMAGING-205 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IMAGING-205 > Project: Commons Imaging > Issue Type: Bug > Components: imaging.* > Reporter: Joakim Knudsen > Assignee: Bruno P. Kinoshita > Priority: Critical > Attachments: 20171030_214812.jpg, 20171030_214812_copy_desktop.JPG, 20171030_21481_COPY.jpg, DSC_5506.JPG, DSC_5506_copy_desktop.JPG, Gaboxjellyfish-changedexifmetadata.jpg, Gaboxjellyfish.jpg, after.html, before.html > > > I'm using the "last stable version" of Apache Sanselan 0.97 in an Android project (app). I have not upgraded to Commons Imaging yet, since the website says there is no stable release yet. Meanwhile, there are bugs in Sanselan. > If I run the [sample code method WriteExifMetadataExample.changeExifMetadata|http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/sanselan/trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/sanselan/sampleUsage/WriteExifMetadataExample.java?p=820841] on an image, which updates the Apterture and GPS tags, the resulting image fails to validate (through Phil Harvey's [ExifTool software|https://sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/]): > {noformat} > > exiftool.exe -validate -error -warning -a "..\20171030_21481_COPY.jpg" > Validate : 19 Warnings (17 minor) > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD0 tag 0x010f > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD0 tag 0x011a > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD0 tag 0x011b > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD0 tag 0x0131 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD0 tag 0x0132 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x829a > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x829d > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x9003 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x9004 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x9202 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x9205 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x920a > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for ExifIFD tag 0x9286 > Warning : Non-standard count (1) for GPS tag 0x0001 GPSLatitudeRef > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for GPS tag 0x0002 > Warning : Non-standard count (1) for GPS tag 0x0003 GPSLongitudeRef > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for GPS tag 0x0004 > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD1 tag 0x011a > Warning : [minor] Odd offset for IFD1 tag 0x011b > {noformat} > I need some advice on how to proceed here. Since Sanselan does not appear to do what it should (even on very basic metadata editing), am I correct to assume that the current version of Commons Imaging does a better job? :-) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)