[digiKam-users] Face tag position and image rotation

[Vlad-Mihai Sima]

Thanks for the answer.

At this point I do not have anymore to the old database (complete system
reinstall), so I will have to rely only on the information stored in the
images.

I made a simple script to count how many images have the problem and they
are around 400 images, so I should probably make the script automatically
adjust the coordinates as well...

Vlad

În dum., 1 aug. 2021 la 13:34, Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com> a
scris:

> Yes, the behavior has been changed. In the past, the face rectangles for
> the
> aligned image were saved by digiKam. There is no standard and no
> information
> on how the orientation was when the face rectangles were saved. But since
> all
> other programs (except Windows Photo Gallery) like Picasa and others save
> the
> face rectangles for the unaligned image, digiKam has changed the behavior.
> Before you change your images, write the metadata from the database to the
> images so that the new orientation is used. Incidentally, the face
> rectangles
> are still stored in the digiKam database for the aligned image.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Sonntag, 1. August 2021, 13:12:58 CEST schrieb Vlad-Mihai Sima:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have recently noticed (at least in versions 7.2 and 7.3, but not sure
> > since what version) that face tags for old pictures that are rotated are
> > not displayed correctly anymore.
> >
> > If I take the old picture, clear the tags, manually tag the faces, then I
> > look at the values in the XMP region metadata in the file (using exiv2
> > command line utility to read them for example) it looks like now the face
> > tags coordinates are using the picture coordinates before the rotation.
> >
> > If I look at the values in XMP regions metadata (using exiv2) in the old
> > picture, with the older face tags, the coordinates in that picture seem
> to
> > be from after the picture rotation.
> >
> > I have checked and I have several pictures affected by this.
> >
> > I would like to know if this is intentional or if it is a bug? If it is
> > intentional is there any script to convert to the new convention?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vlad
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20210801/c11adce0/attachment.htm>