[digiKam-users] exiv2 corrupted image metadata

[Gilles Caulier]

Hi,

I switch all digiKam bundles to Exiv2 0.27 maintenance git branch to
include all last patches not yet released.

https://invent.kde.org/graphics/digikam/commit/34476af3baf7a5c5b5b83a120b65ad06f455cbad

Best

Gilles

Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 20:14, Maik Qualmann <metzpinguin at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Yes of course it helps, in the next Exiv2 version it will probably be
> fixed.
> Robin was very fast to analyze and fix this bug. You should thank him. But
> it
> is also a Sony problem if they break Exif specifications. Your image is
> very
> large compared to the samples on the web, have you set a very high JPG
> quality? I suspect that Sony also saves the thumbnail with this high
> quality,
> which then becomes too big for the Exif Makernotes tag.
>
> Maik
>
> Am Montag, 22. November 2021, 19:44:31 CET schrieb Hans-Peter Huth:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 22:08:50 +0100
> > Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Le dim. 21 nov. 2021 à 20:55, Hans-Peter Huth
> >
> > > <hans-ph at web.de> a écrit :
> > See the reply on the Exiv2 bug tracker:
> > https://github.com/Exiv2/exiv2/issues/2001
> >
> > Does this help?
> >
> > HP
> >
> > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 20:32:13 +0100
> > > > Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles at gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Exiv2 is  a C++ low level library
> > > > > ExifTool is a Perl CLI tool.
> > > > >
> > > > > Implementations are completely different and not dependent.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, shure. But isn't this a hint that the image as such is correct?
> Or
> > > > is Exiftool more tolerant against errors?
> > >
> > > Exiftool is more mature than Exiv2 so code is more robust and can
> handle
> > > special conditions in metadata.
> > >
> > > Gilles Caulier
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20211124/445708e9/attachment.htm>