Another +1 here. As far as I understand, the only real point of the COG driver is to be a quick way to get some sensible defaults for GeoTIFF format, and compression is definitely one such sensible default.
Also, the COG spec's example GDAL command includes `-co COMPRESS=LZW`, which might be another reason why some are surprised that the dedicated COG driver doesn't do the same. https://github.com/cogeotiff/cog-spec/blob/master/spec.md Daniel On Thu, 30 Sept 2021 at 18:30, Tobias Wendorff < [email protected]> wrote: > I'd give LZW a go. I've got very good experience with that, in terms of > performance on weaker or embedded systems. However, some people still > think that the algorithm has a protection by patents. > > > Am 30.09.2021 um 15:46 schrieb Even Rouault: > > should we enable a default compression scheme for the COG driver ? I've > > heard people "complaining" about that, or people just not realizing that > > specifying a compression method was something reasonable to do. Likely a > > lossless one to be conservative. ZSTD is probably not reasonable as it's > > too non-standard outside of the GDAL/libtiff world. So the choice would > > go basically between LZW or DEFLATE. LZW has probably the best > > compatibility profile (but the less efficient). I guess that most > > browser based solutions would handle it ? Thoughts ? > > > > Even > > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
