-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Starling schrieb: Can do. How about img_metadata, with XML? We could add more EXIF data or other metadata about the image there. Or would that be too slow to parse? Another way would be to keep it as it is, and add a special mode to ImagePage.php, which would return the EXIF table in plain text; that could be read in by the "calling" wikipedia. Now that I think of it: Why not include the EXIF data in the Special:Export XML for the image description page? That way, we could display EXIF data, image comment, (last) author of the description page etc. in the "calling" wikipedia, which is a wanted feature anyway. Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim Starling schrieb: OK, img_exif is in, as a serialized array. Don't forget to update your image table! :-) I will add a function to update the img_exif field if it is empty, when viewing an image; that way, all exiting images will get updated automatically, in time. Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dori schrieb: It is img_exif now. Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tony Sidaway schrieb: Neither, for good reasons :-) The EXIF data is part of the image file. It is generated at the moment the photo is made. I'm just extracting it from there. There's no point editing EXIF data for us; the only field one should edit would be the description and, well, we can already do that :-) I do not store the history in the old image table, as it can be retrieved from the image itself. Magnus

"Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote in message news:42679D04.2060805@web.de... What am I looking for? I'm getting nothing like your screen shot: it just looks like an normal image page. -- Phil [[en:user:Phil Boswell]]

Magnus Manske wrote: Here ya go: http://test.leuksman.com/index.php/Image:Town_hall%2C_Reims%2C_France_2004-… Might want to change the alignment on the table cells. Localized, NonCamelCase item names might be nice too though that'll be some work. I'm uncertain about the right-floating table; it's awfully big and seems to weigh kind of strangely. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

It would be nice if the look didn't suck in general. When Magnus initially added the support he made the table appear before the image and aligned it to the right, this had the negative side-effect of having a huge table before the image (as opposed to floating beside the image) when the image was too big to fit the table beside it, so I moved it. It would be nice if we could have the middle ground of beside the image if it fits and below it (not above) if it doesn't. Regarding statistics that wouldn't be practically possible (fast) unless we added a new table named image_metadata and had a seperate field for each valid EXIF tag (of which there are alot), then we could add an advanced Image search.

On 4/23/05, Patrick Collison <patrick(a)collison.ie> wrote: There are 116 valid exif fields in version 2.2 of the standard, we probably only want to index 103 of those, but that still leaves alot of fields. Could you point me to an image (or images) with GPS metadata? I'm currently improving our GPS EXIF support of which we have none.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason schrieb: We could always limit the table width, and then make the user set the maximum image preview width in his preferences manually :-] IMHO the chances for someone desperately needing to search for all images taken with a specific camera model or similar are pretty slim. The vast majority of people will search for names (places, people), types/context (beach, church, person) etc. For doing some statistics, a dozen new fields or so might be overkill. A statics-gathering task could run once a week or so, reading each and every entry and doing statistics internally, then sum them up on a single page. If, for some reason, there's pressing need for fast searching of EXIF data, maybe a new table (exif_image_id,exif_key,exif_value) would be in order; that way, we can store all keys flexible (as a string), without having to create a new field for every single key (and update and maintain these, if the standard changes). Magnus

On Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:51 PM, Michael Keppler <Michael.Keppler(a)gmx.de> wrote: Actually, it's "FlashUsed" -> 0 and "flashUsed" -> "No". The EXIF data is essentially free-form, decided by the manufacturer of the camera (though it can be edited after capture with some tools too, of course). The main problem is that a lot of cameras use quite odd names for some of their fields, that there are very few bits of EXIF data that are actually particularly useful, and that a lot of the more useful ones are in fact not generated (I'm thinking of the standard names for GPS co-ordinates - automagical location-generation would be terribly cool, though a bit of a privacy risk for users, of course). I'm interested to see what Magnus will decide to do with the data. Yours, -- James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] Mail: james(a)jdforrester.org | jon(a)eh.org | csvla(a)dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com