Opened 17 years ago
Closed 17 years ago
#67 closed defect (fixed)
r.out.gdal type= and no-data issues
Reported by: | sieczka | Owned by: | martinl |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | critical | Milestone: | 6.3.0 |
Component: | Default | Version: | unspecified |
Keywords: | gdal | Cc: | grass-dev@…, warmerdam |
CPU: | Unspecified | Platform: | Unspecified |
Description
If data 'type' is not specified and the input raster has nulls, r.out.gdal picks a correct datatype automatically, but sets a bogus no-data value. Example, in spearfish60:
r.out.gdal in=geology out=gelogy.tif Exporting to GDAL data type: Byte 100% WARNING: Input raster map constains cells with NULL-value (no-data). For no-data values was used value -2147483648. You can specify nodata value by nodata parameter. r.out.gdal complete.
Note the bogus -2147483648 no-data value, not in Byte datatype range.
If the user specifies 'type=Byte' explicitely, r.out.gdal sets nodata to 255 by default (OK):
GRASS 6.3.svn (spearfish60):~ > r.out.gdal in=geology out=gelogy2.tif type=Byte Exporting to GDAL data type: Byte 100% WARNING: Input raster map constains cells with NULL-value (no-data). For no-data values was used value 255. You can specify nodata value by nodata parameter. r.out.gdal complete.
Attachments (1)
Change History (6)
by , 17 years ago
Attachment: | r-out-gdal-no-data.diff added |
---|
follow-up: 4 comment:1 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Keywords: | gdal added |
Owner: | changed from | to
Status: | new → assigned |
Please test the attached patch. Martin
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
I darkly remember that GDAL uses out-of-range values for no data. Possible?
See also
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2007-May/031316.html
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2007-May/031715.html
Markus
comment:3 by , 17 years ago
Replying to neteler:
I darkly remember that GDAL uses out-of-range values for no data. Possible?
See also
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2007-May/031316.html
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2007-May/031715.html
this should be already fixed, see r29555.
Martin
comment:4 by , 17 years ago
comment:5 by , 17 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
The attached patch should fix this issue.