>> If you start Shotwell with a dummy library (e.g. 'shotwell -d foo') and import just those photos, are the orientation and dimensions correct? Yes.
>> What version of Shotwell are you running? 0.11.6-0ubuntu0.1 I have the yorba ppa in my repo, but is that the most recent? or --version reports "Shotwell 0.11.6". >> What operating system version are you running? Linux poseidon 3.0.0-16-generic #28-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 27 17:44:39 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 11.10 Release: 11.10 Codename: oneiric >> Have you made any edits to these photos in Shotwell? Have you edited them in an external editor? I believe no to both, but I'm not 100%. On 02/29/2012 03:26 PM, Clinton Rogers wrote: > Hi all, > > Please pardon my intruding upon this thread, but this sounds very > similar to http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4747 . If you can tell us > more about what version of Shotwell you're running, and, if you're > using trunk, what commit you're on*, that will provide a huge clue. > > In the Shotwell code, there is a function named get_dimensions() that > takes, among other arguments, a flag that tells it whether to take > into account EXIF orientation or not when computing the width and > height of a given image, and another function named > get_raw_dimensions() that returns the width and height of an image > before any orientation changes or editing are taken into account > (they're pulled directly from the image). My guess is that somewhere, > a call to get_dimensions() is being told not to respect the > orientation when it in fact should or we're using get_raw_dimensions() > in a place where get_dimensions() is needed, which would explain why > the values you see for the width and height of your affected photos > are (sort of) correct, but reversed (along with stretching or > squashing). > > Cheers, > -c > > * this can be determined by going to where you've checked out the > Shotwell source code and typing 'git log', then looking at the topmost > entry in the resulting text, which will usually be something like > 'commit <long hexadecimal number here>'. The hexadecimal number is > what we're interested in. > > On 2/29/12, Adam Dingle <[email protected]> wrote: >> Joseph, >> >> On 02/28/2012 09:45 PM, Joseph Bylund wrote: >>> When I view my library some portrait photos are stretched to landscape >>> dimensions, such that people are very wide (i.e. right orientation, >>> wrong dimensions). Weirdly when I double click these the orientation is >>> wrong but the dimensions are right. Rotating again gives me short >>> people sideways in the overview and normal people correctly oriented if >>> I double click. >> >> What version of Shotwell are you running? What operating system version >> are you running? Have you made any edits to these photos in Shotwell? >> Have you edited them in an external editor? If you start Shotwell with >> a dummy library (e.g. 'shotwell -d foo') and import just those photos, >> are the orientation and dimensions correct? >> >>> Somewhat unrelated, can I reset my password on the redmine site if I >>> know only my username (i.e. no email, but I'm sure I'll get the message >>> if an email is sent to the address I registered with). >> >> No. I'll send you a private email message with your registered email >> address. >> >> adam -- Joseph Bylund March 1, 2012 Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. Douglas Adams
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
