We sometimes encounter a conflict between a format attribute held by the feature and writer parameter setting, especially in a case where the writer format is the same as the reader format.
It may be difficult to define generic rules regarding which one should take priority, but in this case, I think the Compression Method parameter setting for the writer should be respected regardless of the value of "geotiff_compression_method".
Convert Packbits geotiff to lzw
How do you think about this?
Hi @takashi. I believe that if a feature type parameter conflicts with a writer-level parameter, then the writer parameter will be ignored and the feature type parameter will be used.
Is this what you are asking about?
Hi @takashi. I believe that if a feature type parameter conflicts with a writer-level parameter, then the writer parameter will be ignored and the feature type parameter will be used.
Is this what you are asking about?
In the question I have linked, the GeoTIFF writer works with the pack-bits compression method when the GeoTIFF reader implicitly set "pack-bits" to a format attribute called "geotiff_compression_mode", even though the user explicitly set "lzw" to the "Compression Method" parameter in the writer feature type. This happens when the source GeoTIFF raster is compressed with the pack-bits method.
Hi @takashi. I added a comment to the question after discussion with development. Improvements are planned for raster and point cloud formats (Known Issue 31125), as well as GEOTIFF specifically (Known Issue 31121).
Hi @takashi. I added a comment to the question after discussion with development. Improvements are planned for raster and point cloud formats (Known Issue 31125), as well as GEOTIFF specifically (Known Issue 31121).