search

peircej / jbrout

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/jbrout
0 stars 0 forks source link

exiftran will break exif-data for Lumix TZ10 #178

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
exiftran will trash the GPS data (maker specific) of Lumix TZ10 images. 

jhead works.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by fragfutter@gmail.com on 5 Dec 2010 at 9:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Could you please supply a sample image file for this as an attachment to the 
bug, I would like to see if this is a similar issue to one that I have just 
started to experience with a new Nikon camera.  

It looks like exiftran has not kept up with newer exif formats and corrupts 
some, if you can work out how it would be worthwhile filing an upstream bug and 
reporting the bug # back here.

Original comment by r...@wallace.gen.nz on 8 Jan 2011 at 9:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
I once (june 2010) wrote an email to kraxel@bytesex.org since I had a similar 
pb (though minor, I don't really know what was altered) with pictures from my 
Lumix FZ-28, but didn't get an answer: 

***
I have an issue (apparently minor). I use exiftran to automatically rotate my 
pictures (currently taken with a Panasonic DMC-FZ28 camera), and started 
recently to use exiftool to add tags. I noticed that on some of the pictures, I 
got a warning such as:

Warning: [minor] Possibly incorrect maker notes offsets (fix by -216?)

After investigation, I noticed that this happen on pictures that were rotated. 
I even tried rotating them back in the original position, but this had no 
effect. Actually, exiftool gives that warning even when listing exif 
information without doing anything.

I tried having a look at the code, but don't really know much about underlying 
exif structure (especially since MakerNotes seem very maker specific). Do you 
know where this comes from and whether it could be fixed ?

Searching on the web, I saw that someone who had a similar problem had also 
noticed that the file signature changed from "EXIF 2.2" to "JFIF 1.01":
http://cpanforum.com/threads/2181
***

Maybe you could try with other emails I found (kraxel@redhat.com and 
gerd@kraxel.org), since he doesn't seem to use some bug tracking system.

Original comment by chartier...@gmail.com on 29 Mar 2011 at 1:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Is this reproducible with jbrout at least r336 (when exiftran was mostly 
eliminated)?

Original comment by matej.c...@gmail.com on 10 Jul 2011 at 6:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Suggesting close because of non-response from the reporter.

Original comment by matej.c...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2012 at 2:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
ok, thanks matej

Original comment by manat...@gmail.com on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:48