[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13932943#comment-13932943
 ] 

Tilman Hausherr commented on PDFBOX-1975:
-----------------------------------------

The cause for the unreliable BMP behavior was that there are two drivers. One 
is meta-readonly, the other isn't. I changed the code so that it will remember 
a driver that is meta-readonly, but that it will keep searching for a better 
one. This was one in rev 1577045.

I changed the test code for WBMP that it creates a bitonal image, because WBMP 
is a bitonal format. I added code for BMP and JPEG that it checks the 
resolution. This was done in rev 1577046.

More to come...

> Improve TestImageIOUtils unit tests to check image resolution and compression
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PDFBOX-1975
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-1975
>             Project: PDFBox
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Utilities
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: Tilman Hausherr
>            Assignee: Tilman Hausherr
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: imageio, test, tiff
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>
> Because of the problems with recent changes (see PDFBOX-1963), I will improve 
> the unit tests so that image resolution and compression is checked.
> I found out that JPEGs don't have a resolution, BMP had the wrong resolution. 
> The fault wasn't in the java TIFF writer as I thought before, it is in the 
> java PNG writer, which uses the PixelSize values wrongly, i.e. it interprets 
> them as "pixels per mm" instead of "mm per pixel" as per specification. The 
> JPEG writer throws an exception "JFIF APP0 must be first marker after SOI". 
> The BMP writer can set the resolution, but the BMP reader doesn't read it.
> (Some of this might be different depending on the version)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to