-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
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
scale-specific tile sizes #23
Comments
Tony, A couple of weeks ago Ben was having a problem with OpenSeadragon and I think what we realized is that JP2s that have precincts often have a tile size that is equal to the full image (is this always true, or could one also specify Stiles={w,h} ?), and when I parse the JP2 header in Loris I'm only looking at tile size[1]. I think I can adjust Loris to read in the precinct sizes without much difficulty, (if you have a copy of the JP2 spec, see table A.15 on pg. 24). But is there is a precinct size for each decomposition level? Or are the multiple arguments I see passed to Cprecincts in various recipes related to the quality layers? Or something else? It comes down to this: if you have a JP2 with precincts, what do you need to server to report? The IIIF info.json data structure looks like this[2], and my concern is that we actually need to be reporting different tile sizes for each scale factor, which would be impossible right now. Or is the structure OK, and would you just need the first precincts parameter? Advice? Thanks, |
Any progress on this? It would be a big change that we should make ASAP if necessary. |
Here is Tony's response:
I think he's correct...if we're saying you need to get the region, then scale, then rotate...you only really care about the tile size at the highest resolution, right? Or am I thinking too much like an implementer? |
Well, the use case is to get the best results from the server. If the server defines 256x256 at one resolution and 128x128 at a lower resolution (as above), we can't specify that in info.json and the server will have to retrieve 4 128x128 tiles to build the 256x256 one requested. My feeling is that with the scale_factor -> h/w math, we're going to end up in a LOT of pain trying to actually get this right. However an implementation note saying that tile sizes at different resolutions should be the same for optimal performance of this API might not go amiss? |
Too low down the stack to fix. |
Need to get to the bottom of this, but there is at least one case, possibly two:
Should this be reflected in info.json?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: