Last modified: 2014-09-10 08:33:58 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 11793 - Image thumbnails don't preserve EXIF data
Image thumbnails don't preserve EXIF data
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
File management (Other open bugs)
1.12.x
All All
: Normal enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-10-28 06:07 UTC by brianna.laugher
Modified: 2014-09-10 08:33 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description brianna.laugher 2007-10-28 06:07:59 UTC
A user has claimed that the fact that our image thumbnails don't preserve EXIF data violates the GFDL, viz "Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document."


We use ImageMagick -thumbnail option to create thumbnails. That command destroys all "image profiles" and removes the EXIF data.

Since the -thumbnail option is optimised for creating small files, probably the easiest way to solve this would be to 1) extract EXIF from original, 2) use -thumbnail to create thumb, 3) attach extracted EXIF to new thumb.

That seems like a lot of overhead though.
Comment 1 Brion Vibber 2007-10-29 13:55:41 UTC
GFDL-relevant data is on the image description page, not embedded in the image file.

We strip extra data for thumbnails because that is the only sensible thing to do, avoiding useless multiplication of file size.
Comment 2 Xhienne 2007-11-17 23:23:13 UTC
Hi! I can't comment on the GFDL aspect.

Just a few words on the processor overhead: copying a 500 byte comment from a 3MB picture to its thumbnail (using rdjpgcom/wrjpgcom from the libjpeg-progs Debian package) is 130 times quicker (on my desktop, ymmv) than making the thumbnail itself with "convert -thumbnail". Therefore, with less than 1%, we can hardly speak of processor overhead.

As for the disk overhead: I don't think that copying all the EXIF data would be required. If there are copyright information associated with the picture, they are in the comment field. I bet the average comment size among the 1.5M Jpeg pictures on Commons, doesn't exceed 100 bytes. Not that much disk overhead.
Comment 3 Jean-Fred 2014-09-10 08:33:58 UTC
See bug 18871

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links