Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post Reply
vlad
Posts: 895
Joined: 01 Sep 08 15:20

Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post by vlad » 17 Dec 14 23:40

For labels under People, I have noticed that the PersonInImage field is written only to the main version. Is this intentional or not? (I suspect a bug but I'm not sure.)

Mke
Posts: 509
Joined: 15 Jun 14 15:39

Re: Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post by Mke » 18 Dec 14 18:05

Well noticed. I see that 'event' is also only being written to the main image too, so looks like a more generalised problem. I've raised a bug report on Mantis (#2737).

LifeIsLong
Posts: 70
Joined: 09 Oct 08 2:22

Re: Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post by LifeIsLong » 18 Dec 14 22:47

Isnt this similar to the "areas tags in versions" issue brought up recently (http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php ... as+version) ? Wouldnt it depend on how the version was cropped, which means PSU would have to guess?

vlad
Posts: 895
Joined: 01 Sep 08 15:20

Re: Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post by vlad » 18 Dec 14 23:38

Hmm, are you saying that a Person In Image may actually be left out of a version? In theory, that could be indeed the case - but, then, the same argument may apply to a label, while the current implementation is that all labels (including person and event labels/keywords) get automatically cascaded. I would therefore expect label mappings to apply to all versions too. (Btw, I think that's already the case with keywords, custom mappings and applied profiles.)

Mke
Posts: 509
Joined: 15 Jun 14 15:39

Re: Should PersonInImage be written to all versions?

Post by Mke » 18 Dec 14 23:42

LifeIsLong wrote:Isnt this similar to the "areas tags in versions" issue brought up recently (http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php ... as+version) ? Wouldnt it depend on how the version was cropped, which means PSU would have to guess?
I can see where you're coming from, but no. The labels apply to the image as a whole, and so the XMP so should also be written to all versions (though it's true that a version could have cropped out a person entirely).

Area tags are saying that a particular part of an image corresponds to a particular person; a crop in this case could easily mean that the person no longer aligns with the part of the image describing them, as per the mocked-up image below. Though in theory the software could be enhanced to 'look' at the two images and work out where to reposition the tags on the cropped version.
HerveyA.png
HerveyA.png (706.83 KiB) Viewed 1694 times
HerveyB.png
HerveyB.png (342.14 KiB) Viewed 1694 times

Post Reply