On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kris Andersen <kris.ander...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the quick replies! > > I'm still having trouble, but maybe I don't know what the final cropped image > should look like? I was thinking all the whitespace and USGS margin info > would be removed?
That is what I would expect too. > > When I follow the directions from > > http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/USGS_PDF_Topo > > I get the output > > http://biciworks.com/OR_Newport_North_20110824_TM_geo.tiff > (warning! 32 MB download) > > This still seems to have lots of whitespace and margin content, although it > is skewed from the original. Is this the right result? I did the same thing and got the same result. If you make a shapefile out of the neatline and view it, you will see that it matches to the black. So it is a correct result but not intended. So we need different values for the neatline. Here are values that I just estimated off of QGIS: "Record_Id","wkb_Polygon" "1","POLYGON ((420793 4955647,420689 4941858,410784 4942004,410971 4955792))" Using this gives expected results. Does this pdf file have incorrect neatline information? I'll look at some others to see if they work better. > > This was done using > > $ gdalwarp -cutline wkt_cutline_file.vrt -cl NEATLINE -crop_to_cutline > OR_Newport_North_20110824_TM_geo.pdf OR_Newport_North_20110824_TM_geo.tiff > > with wkt_cutline_file.vrt and NEATLINE.csv copied from the Wiki. > > When I try the same command with the GeoPDF I linked to, all I get is an ugly > black square. This is after changing NEATLINE.csv accordingly with the > metadata from VA_Strasburg_20110524_TM_geo.pdf, specifically, > > NEATLINE.csv > "Record_Id","wkb_Polygon" > "1","POLYGON ((739349.486192459356971 > 4305760.633085563778877,726989.596524115651846 > 4305396.499421719461679,726535.950552191701718 > 4320794.730121357366443,738895.840220535406843 > 4321158.863785205408931,739349.486192459356971 4305760.633085563778877))" > > I noticed the mailing list post pays particular attention to GDAL_PDF_DPI. > > $ gdalwarp -crop_to_cutline -cutline $i.csv -co "GDAL_PDF_DPI=250" -of GTiff > $i $i.tiff > > If I'm not mistaken, I think this line should be > > $ gdalwarp -crop_to_cutline -cutline $i.csv --config GDAL_PDF_DPI 250 -of > GTiff $i $i.tiff I think you are correct but I'm not certain. > > Regardless, setting the resolution to 250 dpi doesn't help matters for me. I > also tried 400 and 508 dpi, which is what USGS claims the high-resolution > scans are, but that was also a dead end. > > Any ideas what's going on here? > > One thing: I did notice my output of gdalinfo --formats is slightly different > from the Wiki. Could this have anything to do with it? I don't think that matters but is a result of a recent reformatting of the output, http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2013-January/035200.html has more. HTH, Eli > > $ gdalinfo --formats | grep PDF > PDF (rwvs): Geospatial PDF > > The Wiki has "PDF (rov): Geospatial PDF". > > Thanks, > > Kris > _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev