feat: handle standardising paletted tiffs #547
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ajacombs
force-pushed
the
feat/standardise-paletted-tiffs
branch
from
4843029 to
4b32252
Compare
blacha
reviewed
Jul 12, 2023
ajacombs
force-pushed
the
feat/standardise-paletted-tiffs
branch
from
7ff6777 to
ccd758c
Compare
paulfouquet
requested changes
Jul 12, 2023
paulfouquet
previously approved these changes
Jul 12, 2023
paulfouquet
approved these changes
Jul 12, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These changes handle TIFFs with a band of Palette colour interpretation type, using the -expand argument to gdal_translate. This takes the contents of the colour palette and applies it to the rgb/rgba bands in the output file.
This resolves the following error encountered when standardising historical imagery survey SN9911:
which used the band arguements -b 1 -b 1 -b 1.
This PR supersedes #310 which was proposed when previously processing historical imagery. I've made a new PR mainly to simplify having to rebase 6 months worth of changes from master onto that branch.
Changes from the earlier PR are that I have now removed the raising of an exception and the handling to catch it, which were the aspects still under discussion preventing it being merged.