Piyush, > We are working on use cases where we have to perform operations similar > to gdal_translate / gdalwarp on complex valued datasets. > The last discussion that I could on this topic in the mailing archives is > from 2010: > https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2010-September/025906.html > I’m willing to put in some effort to update the algorithms to handle nodata > values for complex valued datasets properly (which it currently appears to > ignore). Any pointers on where to start looking or focus on would help?
gcore/overview.cpp alg/gdalwarpkernel.cpp > We would like to avoid using pixel functions and manipulating the real/imag > parts independently and then putting them back together. > There are also different options for interpreting nodata. I believe we are > limited to real values for this metadata field and adding new fields / > changing the type could be pretty disruptive. > 1. Compare real value only (seems easiest to implement) > 2. Compare that both real and imaginary values are set to no data > (probably better way of checking?) > If one were to implement nodata support for complex-valued datasets, which > implementation would be preferred. Probably that comparing the real value only would be the best way to go Looking quickly, I see we have some inconsistency of behaviour. For example GDALRasterBand::GetHistogram() takes the norm of the value before comparing to nodata, whereas ComputeStatistics() only compares (and takes into account) the real value. Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
