Generate 32-Bit Images with MapViewer?

Hi,
is there any posibilitiy to generate 32-bit images with an alpha-channel (RGBA)?
Currently I can only produce 24-bit images without an Alpha-Channel (RGB).
Regards
Kerstin

It's been out for months.
You're using CC, not CC 2014 -- it may already be installed, and you're just launching the wrong version.

Similar Messages

  • Save an image with partial transparen​cy

    There appears to be no way to preserve alpha channel information when saving an image out of labview, even when using the IMAQ vision functions. That is to say, you can create a partially transparent image using labview, but you can't save it to disk. Is this correct?
    global variables make robots angry

    The issue boiled down to bad documentation. LabVIEW is cool,
    but I really can’t wrap my head around how, given the very limited amount of
    documentation, so much of it could contain goofy mistakes. The documentation
    says that LabVIEW can’t handle a 32-bit image, and that it can only render
    transparency as a binary mask.
    Attached is a VI that demonstrates how to create partial
    transparency in LabVIEW by building a 32-bit image with an alpha channel.
    LabVIEW has no problem saving it out as a PNG. You can’t display it properly
    with the picture indicator, but you can display it properly with the 3d picture
    control. You have to ignore the documentation and switch the image bit depth
    value to 32 and order the image data as groups of 4 bytes, alpha, red, green,
    blue for each pixel.
    Also, if you create a binary picture mask to be used with a
    picture indictor, you need to add an extra column of bytes for no identifiable
    reason. You’ll find that when LabVIEW reads in a PNG with an alpha channel, it
    reads it in properly and creates a binary mask. You can save it out properly
    and alpha channel info is preserved. The mask will be larger than expected
    because of the weird extra column of bytes that isn’t mentioned in the
    documentation. For instance, if you load a 600 x 400 PNG with an alpha channel,
    the mask will be 30400 bytes long instead of 30000 bytes that would be expected
    if the description of how the binary mask works was right.
    Please note that there are two separate data structures (the
    32-bit image data with an alpha channel and the binary mask with the weird
    extra column) that are described incorrectly in the documentation for all of
    the picture function help pages. Note that there are several lines in each affected
    help page that need to be corrected.
    I like LabVIEW because it’s great for communicating with NI
    hardware, it’s easy to do parallel computing and it’s super easy to make a nice
    GUI. I’ve used LabVIEW to write real-time target tracking software that works
    on a wide range of targets in real video and I’ve used to it write a real-time
    3D simulation using real imagery and real video including ground imagery,
    transparent cloud imagery and real video of explosions. So, even though the
    function libraries are not terribly robust, I know that LabVIEW has a good deal
    of potential as a platform for serious programming work. I only started using
    LabVIEW less than two years ago, so that should tell you that LabVIEW is fairly
    intuitive to use.
    However, I’m a little disappointed and frustrated with it
    because I keep getting burned by poor documentation and silly bugs that eat up
    programming time. LabVIEW is expensive software, and while the function
    libraries are nice, they are somewhat limited. I think that National
    Instruments should either offer much more functionality or do a better job
    documenting and debugging the existing function libraries (of add-ons and
    toolkits, too) in order to justify the cost of LabVIEW software.
    Message Edited by Root Canal on 11-02-2009 05:33 PM
    Message Edited by Root Canal on 11-02-2009 05:35 PM
    Message Edited by Root Canal on 11-02-2009 05:37 PM
    global variables make robots angry
    Attachments:
    transparency.zip ‏724 KB
    nope.png ‏62 KB
    32 bit with alpha channel small.png ‏599 KB

  • 64 bits code with Pro*C

    I need to generate 64 bits code with my Pro*C programs.
    Some documents reference a makefile called demo_proc64.mk,
    where can i found it?
    How can i use de lib64 library's if i dont have that makefile?
    Thanks.

    I stumbled upon the solution. In my makefile, I had the final compile look something like this (greatly abbreviated):
    cc $(PROLDLIBS) program1.o -o program1Well, it turns out that if you list PROLDLIBS after the object, it compiles without complaining about multiple main() functions. So it's all happy if I do this:
    cc program1.o $(PROLDLIBS) -o program1I guess I should assume that the sslb9 library detects if there is already a main() function and disregards its own if so. Whatever... I still don't know what that library does, but at least I don't have to jump through hoops to strip it out anymore.

  • 8-bit image acts like a 16!

    Hi all, Photoshop newbie here. We create images with a color linescan camera and save to a TIF file. They are all 8-bit images, no colorspace assigned.
    I took 2 images within 6 minutes of each other. Photoshop (CS2) identifies both of them as 8-bit images. BUT, it treats one file like it's a 16-bit image with missing filters etc but is fine with the other image. The only difference I can see is the file size. The file that works is about 110MB, while the problem file is about 161MB.
    Has anyone seen anything similar, or knows how Photoshop decides when an image is "filter-worthy" and when it's not? Thanks in advance!

    What's interesting is that a simple resize of the image fixes the behavior of the filter menu. So going from say ~520 ppi to 400 ppi, all of a sudden you have access to the greyed-out filters. But you only have to do that on the larger of the 2 files. They both have the same native resolution (we scan at 2048 pixels/line at 200 lines/cm).
    It's also cross-platform, same problem for Macs and PC's running the same version of Photoshop. Strange...

  • [MV] generate two different image formats with one map-request

    hi
    im using MapViewer API.
    can i generate two different image formats (e.g.jpg and svg) with one map-request. is this possible ?
    best regards
    mathias °ö°

    Hi Mathias,
    this is not possible issuing just one request. You would need to repeat the request changing the format.
    Joao

  • Really bad banding and artifacts in 16-bit layered greyscale file. Bad banding is retained when converted to 8-bit with No flattening. Flatten 16-bit image and banding and artifacts disappear even with no dither or noise layer. Is this a known bug?

    Has anyone else experienced this?
    I thought it was a monitor problem at first, but I'm using a 10-bit per channel Eizo. It seems to be a Photoshop bug based on many layers interacting with each other. When I flatten everything is fine. But I need to work on this image with layers and decent fidelity. Interestingly when I convert to 8-bit without flattening (and utilising the dither function to potentially reduce banding even further), it uses the terrible artifact laden/banding to do the conversion even though when I zoom into 1:1 in my 16-bit document it looks fine. But 50% or 25% zoom I suddenly get these awful artifacts.
    Here's some screenshots to clarify. Please note I've used Photoshop for 24 years so I'm no slouch but this is the first time I've seen this. The problem is I need to do some subtle airbrush and texture work on this and it's almost unusable unless I flatten (please note, it does the same in the original 8-bit file and just to say I Gaussian-Blurred every layer with a 30px radius after converting to 16-bit so the there's no longer any 8-bit information in there or reasons for banding/artifacts). I can only think it is some of bug in Photoshop's layering engine.
    Has anyone seen this before - dealt with this before?
    Thanks in advance.
    Not sure these embedded images will work.
    8% zoomed - see all the strange banding and triangular artifacts
    <a href="http://imgur.com/izrGuia"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/izrGuia.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    Flattened view - all smooth:
    <a href="http://imgur.com/Pn35IAK"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Pn35IAK.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    50% zoom, still there:
    <a href="http://imgur.com/Z207hFd"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Z207hFd.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    100% artifacts disappear:
    <a href="http://imgur.com/6aGOz0V"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/6aGOz0V.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    100% 16-bit layered
    <a href="http://imgur.com/0XJfe5e"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/0XJfe5e.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    and finally 8-bit layered converted from 16-bit with dither.
    <a href="http://imgur.com/PSxiu43"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/PSxiu43.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
    help!

    I can't speak to why, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can speak to that.   But if it only happens at certain views then it's purely a display issue; it won't happen in print or when you downsample to display size.  Such banding issues have always disappeared for me when I output to 8 bit.
    I'd assume that it's because of your monitor; it can't display all the colors and when zoomed out there's too wide of a range in a small area so banding occurs.  But that's just my guess.

  • Using Photoshop Elements as external editor with Aperture 3: What are issues with requiring 8-bit image?

    While I would do most of my photo edits with Aperture there may be times I would like to do special effects that a PSE might offer with layers.  I am considering purchasing PSE 10 and was concerned with having to lose information by saving as an 8-bit image.  Can anyone enlighten me of the circumstances when this would be of concern? 
    Thanks.

    Can anyone enlighten me of the circumstances when this would be of concern?
    If you had to do high quality printing larger than 8x10.
    Before buying PSE trial Pixelmator and try GIMP. Note that GIMP (now v2.6) will have 16-bit per channel with v3.0.
    -Allen

  • Cant work with 32 bit image files?

    Hi there, I am unable to work with 32 bit image files on our cs6 ? I am fallowing a tutorial and a person creates a new file with 32 bit channel selected from dropdown menu, and starts painting on it he is using CS5. When I create a 32 bit file and select the brush tool, it comes on with circle and cross line and error comes up saying that the brush tool is not supported with 32 bit image files, in fact, I cant use any tools on the 32 bit images, I can't even create a new layer on the file. There is one thing I can do, which is a great feature, I can save it! But it's not much of a use now is it? If the image is plane white sheet. Is this a special feature that you need to purchase seperetly? Could you please advise. Regards

    Hello again,
    so resetting the preference file makes no difference to the problem.
    I checked 6 of our macs. 3 of the macs can create the 32 bit images and allow paint and other tools with no problem. Jet the other 3 macs have the same problem as I have. I checked my 2008 macbook which has CS5, and it can also edit 32 bit files. Checked my PC yesterdey which has CS6 installed, can't work with 32 bit image files.
    I find this very odd, some work and some don't. Any suggestions would be great. Please also find a screenshot of the mac with the issue.
    Kind regards,

  • Generate image with CFIMAGE - but need to use img tag to serve the content

    I create a new image with cfimage, that already works without
    any problems.
    But instead of using the action="writetobrowser" I need to be
    able to use the script inside a img tag:
    Example: <img
    src="myscript.cfm?somedata=iwanttheimagetocreate>
    I found one webpage that deals with that problem (
    http://www.webdevelopernews.com/2007/09/14/serving-up-cfimages-via-image-tags/)
    but the image served to the browser, when using the code below, is
    of a very low quality and another point is that you can't serve
    .gif's to the browser.
    <cfcontent type="image/jpg"
    variable="#ImageGetBlob(backgroundimage)#">
    Any suggestions/solutions?
    Thanks,
    Phil

    In that entry Raymond mentions:
    "The WriteToBrowser action actually generates HTML that points
    to a ‘magic’ URL to serve the image.". ie <img
    src="/CFFileServlet/_cf_image/_cfimg-12345036853711072.PNG" alt=""
    />
    Perhaps you could create a function that captures the
    generated html by using <cfsavecontent>.
    <cfsavecontent variable="imageTagHTML">
    <cfimage action="writeToBrower" ..>
    </cfsavecontent>
    Then uses a regular expression to extract and return the url
    portion only. ie
    "/CFFileServlet/_cf_image/_cfimg-12345036853711072.PNG"
    <cfset ExtractedURLHere = SomeFunction(arguments...)>
    <cfoutput><img
    src="#ExtractedURLHere#"></cfoutput>
    Though you could also use the entire html string directly
    <cfoutput>#imageTagHTML#</cfoutput>

  • How to filter all images with 16 BIT colordepth?

    is there a way in LR (or bridge) to filter all images that are saved as 16 bit images.
    i noticed i have a lot of scanned photos/slides that don´t need to be in 16 bit TIFF format.
    8 bit is enough for them and would save me a ton of HDD space (even when most of them are LZW compressed).
    but i need a way to find them in my 80000 images database.
    so that i can make a further selection which of these 16 bit  images i can convert to 8 bit.

    >
    but this plugin changes a lot in the database right?
    Right.
    im always a bit fearsome when a plugin changes the database entrys.
    Apart from increasing the database file size, I don't think there's
    anything to be afraid about. First, the plugins do not do it directly, but
    via and SDK provided by Adobe. Second, all the plugin data is stored in
    separate database tables, so they don't mess with stock data.

  • Generating input textfields on clicking image with adf

    Is it possible to generate input text fields dynamically on clicking a image with adf??
    The functionality to add and remove text field from UI with ADF??
    Edited by: 897462 on Nov 16, 2011 12:16 AM

    thanks for ur reply....my other question is
    Is it possible to generate input text fields dynamically on clicking a image with adf??
    The functionality to add and remove text field from UI with ADF??

  • Generate input text fields dynamically on clicking a image with adf??

    Is it possible to generate input text fields dynamically on clicking a image with adf??
    The functionality to add and remove text field from UI with ADF??

    Yes, you can dynamically add components to a page.
    [url http://www.nearinfinity.com/blogs/michael_bevels/dynamic_forms_using_jsf.html]Here is an example - it demonstrates with ICE Faces components, but the concept is the same for any type of component, including ADF
    John

  • How fix problem of the Alt Key, when used with with the Clone stamp, generating an overlay image?

    I am using CS5.   When I try to  use  the Clone Stamp  or Healing Brush Tools, pressing the Alt key generates an extraneous image which overlays the
    the image  which is being worked on  prevents these tools from functioning by sliding at around  when  the ALT tool is pressed. Does any one elso have this odd problem? How can it be fixed?
    Thanks,
    JackIsaac 

    . Yes this was the problem.  As a novice, I would have spent hours and hours figuring this out.  Many thanks.

  • AVI creation with 8-bit Image Type specified

    I am NOT able to create an AVI using 8-bit Image Type (specified for IMAQ create)
    I am able to create AVI using RGB Image Type (specified for IMAQ create)
    The help for IMAQ AVI Write Frame states that "This image must be either an 8-bit or RGB image."
    Why does this not work for 8-bit image type. Using LV71, Vision7.
    Thanks,
    Don

    Here is basic code including resulting AVI...Don
    Attachments:
    test.avi ‏195 KB
    test_8bit_avi.llb ‏212 KB

  • Scrollable/scalable image with buttons on top of it?

    Hey guys,
    I've had a few half-goes at doing this before but now have to do it for real in my project and I'm struggling to get something clean and I'm looking for pointers.
    I want to have an image (typically a schematic, or a map) which is scrollable and zoomable. I want to overlay some buttons on the image for controlling zoom (and other things, but lets keep it simple for now). I want the whole thing to be a custom component that I can drop into another panel, and for that custom component to be resized nicely inline with its parent (i.e. if I put it in a BorderPane.center it should take up the available space and no more or less).
    So I started with something logical/simple, a StackPane at the top-level with a ScrollPane containing an ImageView as the first child, and then an 'overlay' panel as the top child of the StackPane to conatain my buttons. I want to anchor my buttons to the top right of the image so I use an Anchor Pane for this. Something like:
    public class MapView extends StackPane
        public MapView()
            ImageView imageView = new ImageView(new Image("C:/temp/my-image.jpg"));
            ScrollPane scrollPane = new ScrollPane();
            scrollPane.setPannable(true);
            scrollPane.setContent(imageView);
            getChildren().add(scrollPane);
            HBox zoomButtons = new HBox(5);
            Button zoomInButton = new Button("+");
            zoomButtons.getChildren().add(zoomInButton);
            Button zoomOutButton = new Button("-");
            zoomButtons.getChildren().add(zoomOutButton);
            AnchorPane controls = new AnchorPane();
            AnchorPane.setRightAnchor(zoomButtons, 20.0);
            AnchorPane.setTopAnchor(zoomButtons, 5.0);
            controls.getChildren().add(zoomButtons);
            getChildren().add(controls);
    }This gives me the perfect layout but with one massive problem: the AnchorPane is stretched to take up the whole area of the StackPane (which is what I want from a layout perspective) but that means it blocks the mouse input to the underlying image view so I can't scroll.
    So I try adding a call to the handy setMouseTransparent method:
    controls.setMouseTransparent(true);And now I can scroll my image around, but I have the inverse problem: the buttons are now mouse transparent as well so I can't click them.
    Snookered.
    So maybe a Group is an option? I try using one instead of the AnchorPane:
    ImageView imageView = new ImageView(new Image("C:\\temp\\corso\\pandids\\pandid-2.jpg"));
    ScrollPane scrollPane = new ScrollPane();
    scrollPane.setPannable(true);
    scrollPane.setContent(imageView);
    getChildren().add(scrollPane);
    HBox zoomButtons = new HBox(5);
    Button zoomInButton = new Button("+");
    zoomButtons.getChildren().add(zoomInButton);
    Button zoomOutButton = new Button("-");
    zoomButtons.getChildren().add(zoomOutButton);
    Group group = new Group(zoomButtons);
    getChildren().add(group);I get my buttons in the middle of the screen and I can both scroll my image and click my buttons. But I can't figure out a way to anchor the buttons up to the top right. Group seems to resize itself to the contents of its children (I imagine there's a reason for this, but it makes Group completely unusable for every scenario I've had for it), so I can't really adjust the size or position of the Group. Calling resize() seems to have no effect and there's no setMaxSize or setPrefSize. Calling setLayoutX doesn't do anything cause its all within a StackPane. The only horribly hack I can think of is to add a dummy component to the group which is the size of the container the group is in. Too painful and too fragile to be a real option.
    Snookered again.
    Maybe I need a Group at the top level instead of the StackPane, but then it all goes a bit nuts with the ImageView sizing and layout pretty much totally gone.
    The only other hack I can come up with is to put my own mouse listener on the anchor pane and implement 'panning' manually, but then the scroll bars won't work so I'll probably have to turn these off.
    It seems like this should be really easy, and the first, logical simple approach was so close it hurts. Am I missing something simple, or is it really this hard?

    Hi Zonski,
    what about this?
            Group group = new Group(zoomButtons);               
            group.translateXProperty().bind(group.layoutXProperty().subtract(20));
            group.translateYProperty().bind(group.layoutYProperty().multiply(-1).add(20));
            getChildren().add(group);Works for me
    Cheers
    Michael

Maybe you are looking for