-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
added wld file to png and tfw file to geotiff #1837
Conversation
TFW and WLD files are equivalent (just the extension is different), I'm leaning toward just generating TFW files? |
Same tendency. Also, it's been a decade since I've encountered software that uses WLD and not TFW. |
GDAL to understand something more from a PNG file would like to have .wld file gdalinfo output with tfw file
gdalinfo output with the wld file
you can see differences in origin and pixel size. TFW file is used by TIFF file |
Just rename the .tfw file to .wld if you need to use gdalinfo? |
Yes, it is possible; it is just a little bit less user friendly. As I said in the first post, I understand it is duplication but it doesn't affect calculation time or output size. You suggest to remove |
To clarify, the are two conventions for naming the file: *.wld and naming it according to image file extension. If the product is a PNG, then the correct world file extension alternative to wld is *.pgw, similarly *.jpw for jpg, etc.. *.tfw for png does not follow the standard, and I agree that having the user rename is not a good experience. So, either we need logic to handle the variants per output type, or we need to just write a file with a wld extension. I have a preference for the variants according to extension as it gives the end user some hint that the files are related, but could argue for either in this case. |
Thanks for everyone's feedback. We already have logic in this PR to generate the appropriate file extension depending on the file type (thanks @lucadelu). My main concern was about redundancy; yes it's just one file, but it's one file that we will be expected to support for a long time. I just like to know the reasons for why we include stuff. User-friendliness is important, so that's a good reason enough for me, since we already support PNG outputs 👍 Side note: as a mature project we have to be a bit careful about feature-creep; it's easy to just have ODM "do more one thing", but we should always ask if an operation is better suited to be done elsewhere downstream (WebODM for example, or via scripts outside of ODM). A monolithic design is not the way to go long term. Btw, just curious, what's the use case for using a georeferenced PNG rather than a GeoTIFF? |
Let's discuss about this changes, I saw several requests on the forum about these files, since it is not time and space consuming I think they are good improvements for ODM outputs.