|
Curt
|
 |
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2010, 07:36:17 PM » |
|
-yeah, I know, the proper word is retrofixiation, but i couldn't spell it. I already all sorts of dictionaries, they couldn't spell it either... Now, is it:  or:  ? Hmm.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
sajman99
|
|
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2010, 07:41:54 PM » |
|
Ha Ha! Cool, works for me 4wd! The intent was sufficiently clear! Just kidding around with Curt of course! (certainly no offense was intended  ) edit: Oops, Curt posted before me. Curt, no offense man, my spelling gets worse and worse with each passing year! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 07:47:13 PM by sajman99 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Szero
|
|
« Reply #102 on: November 08, 2010, 08:28:27 AM » |
|
Or you need a smaller porn collecion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Szero
|
|
« Reply #103 on: November 11, 2010, 01:27:49 AM » |
|
Seems like both AntiDupl & UniqueFiler have their bugs, AD finds a bunch of quasi-equal images (few pixels different for a 1280*1024 image) that UF didn't catch, while the exact same happens the other way around.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #104 on: November 11, 2010, 05:14:16 AM » |
|
Seems like both AntiDupl & UniqueFiler have their bugs, AD finds a bunch of quasi-equal images (few pixels different for a 1280*1024 image)
I would not call this a bug, but a feature. They all try to find 'similar' pictures. ---------------------------- You people are suffering from retrofixial!  btw Curt it seems I need a larger (and I mean much much larger) dictionary. It's an Americanism - ie. make up a word when the right one doesn't seem right, (or comes to mind) -yeah, I know, the proper word is retrofixiation, but i couldn't spell it.
I already have all sorts of dictionaries, they couldn't spell it either...
Now, what must I do to get retrofixiation officially recognized? I guess I could try to write down an article to be posted in one of the major magazines, but I have a strong feeling this may sound a heck of a lot easier said than done. I had the same problem with Vistable. Hmm... maybe I should just try to learn proper English?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
cranioscopical
|
|
« Reply #105 on: November 11, 2010, 06:51:49 AM » |
|
Hmm... maybe I should just try to learn proper English?
What a fantamazing idea!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chris
|
|
|
|
tomos
|
|
« Reply #106 on: November 11, 2010, 07:18:58 AM » |
|
Hmm... maybe I should just try to learn proper English?
OTOH wouldnt it be nice to have a new English word originating here at dc (or there in dk) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sajman99
|
|
« Reply #107 on: November 11, 2010, 04:56:07 PM » |
|
Seems like both AntiDupl & UniqueFiler have their bugs, AD finds a bunch of quasi-equal images (few pixels different for a 1280*1024 image) that UF didn't catch, while the exact same happens the other way around. This finding is fairly common, and it's why I don't rely on a single program to detect similar images. All of these duplicate image finders have strengths and weaknesses based on algorithm. For example, I recently had a pic which was much darker than its duplicate. I could easily see they were the same, but many of these tools were blind to the match. Also, inaccuracies will occur with dark/light backgrounds and captioned images; many algorithms aren't smart enough to deal with these situations. It's sometimes really surprising when a particular software is unable to "see" what is in fact a visually similar image. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #109 on: March 09, 2011, 05:21:28 PM » |
|
Dup Detector used 22% CPU for 22 minutes, in order to "Build" a data file from my 5.772 medium sized JPGs. The following analysis was both fast (a few seconds) and exact. This is a keeper! Thanks for telling  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
sajman99
|
|
« Reply #110 on: March 10, 2011, 12:50:18 PM » |
|
...both fast (a few seconds) and exact. This is a keeper!...
I agree. I've used Dup Detector for many years because it works great. The program has good cache management via the "Fast rebuild" command. Free, fast and accurate! btw the last version of SimilarImages can be found at this site: https://tn123.org/simimagesI don't use SimilarImages very often nowadays, but it seems many folks like the program. AntiDupl.NET has also had some new releases lately, but I have chosen to stick with the older version 1.6.0.0. I tested the newer versions and didn't much care for some of the supposed "improvements". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #112 on: April 20, 2011, 02:21:25 PM » |
|
we should also know about today's giveaway, http://www.giveawayofthed...y.com/visual-search-pony/, Visual Search Pony. Photos and videos only. Slow scanning (disappointingly slow) because it doesn't just search for meta data but really takes a look at each picture, to compare content. http://visualsearchpony.com/ $25 Edited: I believe this is the only one also comparing videos? The giveaway version doesn't set shortcut on the desktop. Executor: C:\Program Files\Visual Search Pony\bin\vsp.exe |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 20, 2011, 02:40:43 PM by Curt »
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
sajman99
|
|
« Reply #113 on: April 20, 2011, 02:59:11 PM » |
|
I tried Visual Search Pony a while back and had no luck with that particular software. Perhaps I overlooked something(?), but I found it to be a major disappointment (btw certainly not an uncommon experience with this type of software) . Hmm...I hope they continue to develop their "revolutionary content-based search". Who knows? In time it could be fantastic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #114 on: April 21, 2011, 01:25:32 AM » |
|
a disappointment ot not, I am keeping it for the video part.
As I type this, there is still half an hour to get it for free.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #115 on: April 21, 2011, 02:48:40 AM » |
|
a disappointment ot not, I am keeping it for the video part.
-no, I am not. Whether it was due to broken files or something else, the program never managed to scan all of my photo or video collections, before crashing. It is a gonner! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
Curt
|
|
« Reply #116 on: April 21, 2011, 03:05:18 AM » |
|
I was very surprised and disappointed to realize that Revo Uninstaller > 'Advanced' didn't find C:\Users\Curt\AppData\Roaming\visualsearchpony.com What else has it not found over time? Hmm... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Remember what you said, because in a day or two, I'll have a witty and blistering retort! You'll be devastated THEN!
|
|
|
|
sajman99
|
|
« Reply #117 on: April 23, 2011, 12:34:00 PM » |
|
... Visual Search Pony...I believe this is the only one also comparing videos?
Good question--I haven't seen many tools which can evaluate video similarity. You might want to try SimilarImages for that purpose. Seems it can process video and compare frames to evaluate similarity. But it's hard to find much information on SimilarImages' video comparison capabilities because the old site is gone, the current location isn't a fully developed site, and the documentation included with the latest 2010.09 (beta) contains outdated/incorrect info. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
