RE: [PEAR-DEV] JPEG Metadata Package

A problem with releasing all of them in a JPEG package is that TIFF files can also have IPTC headers. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Delmont [mailto:sdelmont@zonageek.com] > Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:28 PM > To: pear-dev@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PEAR-DEV] JPEG Metadata Package > > > >>Even if it is not C code, it is faster than those compiled > functions > >>(at > >>least it was the last time I checked about a year ago when > I started my > >>package). > > > > > > I guess that Exif has improved pretty much since then. > Perhaps Marcus > > can clue us in, whether it's possible that a userland > implementation > > is faster than his extension? > > > > After doing some benchmarks against exif_read_data in 4.3, I got to > admit it has improved a lot :-) So I no longer can say my code is > faster. In fact... it seems that exif_read_data now runs > about 20 times > faster. > > It might be possible for Image_JPEG to wrap exif_read_data > when parsing > files for read-only purposes, but I wouldn't get into that at > this point. > > Image_JPEG can process about 100 images per second on a 1GHz Pentium. > > > > > Can you, as a first step, perhaps have a look at Image_IPTC and > > summarize, how the packages differ? > > > > I would... if Image_IPTC would have been released. I didn't > noticed that > when I first saw it on the packages database. > > I sent an email to it's author. > > However, I think having a single Image_JPEG module (instead of > Image_EXIF and Image_IPTC) would be a better idea. > > Regards, > Sebastian > > > -- > PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >