Clinton,
To go way back in time here, I _think_ I may have diagnosed this issue.
I occasionally use my own raw->jpg developer, and for some reason I
decided I wanted it to always output jpeg files without any orientation
information. I believe this decision was originally linked to some
other program not respecting this information when displaying jpeg
files. My naming scheme is such that shotwell will (always, sometimes?)
detect the pair of files as a raw+jpeg pair (which is great because they
are) but it seems to pull the exif info from one file, I assume the raw,
even when it is displaying the jpeg. Thus, when I have already applied
the translation to the jpeg it "double translates" (yes I do strip the
"Orientation" field from the exif (using exiftool).
Does that make sense. Is my converter breaking some accepted practice
by applying the translation and stripping the orientation field (I'd
think not, because in my opinion I should be able to have it draw a
square smiley face for every input raw file if I want it to).
Let me know what other information I can provide (I won't delete my
database this time).
-Joe
Linux poseidon 3.0.0-17-generic #30-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 8 20:45:39 UTC
2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
shotwell 0.12.1-2~oneiric1
On 03/01/2012 02:09 PM, Clinton Rogers wrote:
Hi again, Joseph,
Looking at the version in question and when it was released, I see
that it would pre-date the current get_dimensions() behavior, so that
doesn't appear to be the problem.
If you're comfortable building things from source, could you try
checking out the current version of the source code and seeing if that
fixes the problem? (Please feel free to ask for help with this if you
need it.)
Off the cuff, I'm inclined to suspect you've happened upon some
alternate case of http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/3067, but since you
haven't edited these, that doesn't seem quite right...
Cheers,
-c
On 2/29/12, Joseph Bylund<[email protected]> wrote:
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
--
Joseph Bylund
April 5, 2012
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
