From: Rod W. <lis...@rw...> - 2002-11-08 06:32:46
|
[The weird email address is a spam-prevention measure. It will reach me until I start to get spam on that address (and I will know that the spamm= er somehow got the address from this list), at which time it will be bounced and I will start to use a new address. You can also contact me via sourceforge.] Lutz M=FCller wrote: > If you think the framework that is in CVS is useful, you could code for > example along libexif/olympus. But if you have other ideas on how to > handle MakerNotes, please tell them. I'm going to add MakerNote support to libexif for the Pentax Optio 230/330/430 range of cameras (I have a 330 myself). My goal is to allow makernote entries to be edited just like any other tag and then saved bac= k to a new file. It seems that the MakerNote fields for the currently supported cameras (Canon, Olympus, and now Pentax) follow a pseudo-IFD structure, and I'm wondering if it would be useful to just add another entry into the IFD en= um (EXIF_IFD_MAKER_NOTE), and then just re-use the existing exif_data_load_.= .. routines to load in the data (after any maker-specific prefix has been skipped over). The only thing which needs to be handled specially is tha= t the tags in the makernote are in a different namespace from the normal IF= D tags. It would also mean that the existing interface for editing tags in the exif program can be re-used (you just specify a different IFD for makernote tags). Does this sound like a reasonable idea ? I'm happy to write the code (an= d have actually started already) ... -- Rod Whitby |