Verifying correct tag info (not value) from tag name in -listx output

Started by Curtis, November 15, 2013, 06:25:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Phil Harvey

Quote from: Curtis on November 18, 2013, 06:35:23 PM
Ok, so the updated -listx will show new tag names, but not new groups (g1) when they are created and existing tags are 'put in them'?

Exactly.

QuoteI guess part of my confusion is that since tags with the same name can be in several groups, I tend to think of a tag as a specific tag in a specific group.

Yes.  That would have been simpler, but would have resulted in a potentially infinite duplication of tags, which is why I needed to use the dynamic group names.  (ie. there is no limit on the maxumum number of IFD's in a TIFF image.)

QuoteFor the third situation, PreviewImage, it looks like the -listx info for this tag is defined the same in both places in -listx (Composite table and the Extra table) so I will use the Extra one since I already have the table and id values from my -X -t output to use to look up the tag info in my -listx output.

The PreviewImage tag exists in many tables.  Extra and Composite are just 2 of them.  Your confusion came from the fact that the groups specified in the -listx output are usually "File" and "Composite" respectively for these tags.  However, the family 0 and 1 group names are overridden for the MPF PreviewImage, and are set to "Composite" instead of "File".  I hope this is clear now.

- Phil
...where DIR is the name of a directory/folder containing the images.  On Mac/Linux/PowerShell, use single quotes (') instead of double quotes (") around arguments containing a dollar sign ($).

Curtis

Yes, as long as the table, id (and index) given in the -X -t output points me to a valid table, id  (and index) in my -listx output I will use that info from the -listx output even though this info has a different g1 and tag name  from what I got from my -X -t output.  And I will show (to user in my program) the group1:tag name I get from the -X -t output.

My head is spinning.... but I believe all is clear now!

Thanks again!
Curtis