Thank you Even. You are totally right as always. The reason is the broken overview.
$ gdal_translate -outsize 1% 1% -oo OVERVIEW_LEVEL=0 input_raster_to_resize_with_max_val_92.tiff output-0ovr.tif $ gdal_translate -outsize 1% 1% input_raster_to_resize_with_max_val_92.tiff output.tif $ gdalinfo -stats -json output.tif | jq '.bands[0].metadata[""].STATISTICS_MAXIMUM' "3149.9255371094" $ gdalinfo -stats -json output-0ovr.tif | jq '.bands[0].metadata[""].STATISTICS_MAXIMUM' "70.651634216309" On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:51 PM Even Rouault <[email protected]> wrote: > Denis, > The maximum of nearest downsampling should be <= maximum of full > resolution. > > Potential explanations: > > - your source file has overviews that contain completely different values > than the full resolution image. > > - or perhaps your input_raster_to_resize_with_max_val_92.tiff file has a > .aux.xml with outdated stats (gdalinfo -stats doesn't regenerate stats if > already found) > > Even > Le 20/05/2021 à 21:42, Denis Rykov a écrit : > > $ gdalinfo -stats -json input_raster_to_resize_with_max_val_92.tiff | jq > '.bands[0].metadata[""].STATISTICS_MAXIMUM' > "92" > $ gdal_translate -outsize 1% 1% input_raster_to_resize_with_max_val_92.tiff > output.tif > Input file size is 6845, 10302 > 0...10...20...30...40...50...60...70...80...90...100 - done. > $ gdalinfo -stats -json output.tif | jq > '.bands[0].metadata[""].STATISTICS_MAXIMUM' > "3149.9255371094"I expected to get the same or at least close value as in the > original raster. What might be the reason for that behavior? > > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing > [email protected]https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev > > -- http://www.spatialys.com > My software is free, but my time generally not. > >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
