Recent Posts
i wouldn't mind having a GUI for the tiffinfo program. who knows, it might come in handy one day.-lanux128 (June 25, 2009, 06:16 AM)
maybe an AHK front-end for tiffinfo would come in handy for non-TC users.I could easily code this up...however, is there enough interest? Speak now!-lanux128 (June 23, 2009, 07:52 PM)
No GUI necessary, btw. command line tool would be perfect-TucknDar (June 22, 2009, 03:23 PM)
sort.zip (30.13 kB - downloaded 358 times.)http://www.totalcmd..../wdx_image_info.htmlThe first plugin recognises the LZW, jpeg, Packbits and zip/deflate formats. The second one recognises the LZW, jpeg, and Packbits formats.
http://www.totalcmd..../plugring/wdx4i.html
I am not sure how reliable these plugins are with TIFF compression because all TIFFs I've got are with LZW. You should try by yourself.-fenixproductions (June 23, 2009, 10:43 AM)
@tomos: maybe you can try this LibTIFF tool - tiffinfo.tiffinfo works as well and recognises the four formats listed above.-lanux128 (June 23, 2009, 08:58 AM)
this does seem like a perfect candidate for a coding snack though, so maybe someone still wants to try it.I'll whip something up...shouldn't take long.-mouser (June 19, 2009, 03:43 PM)
is there any way to just take the name till you get to the first "-" and ignore the rest? Would seem to be easier to do that.-famewolf (June 18, 2009, 11:23 PM)
I guess I was unclear in my Python script post, but it also adds the zero-byte files with correct modification dates >__>I just tried your script...very nice work. =]-akx (June 10, 2009, 03:10 PM)
I gave it a test on a folder with 5200 files (184 folders) in it and it was done in around eight seconds.Some further thoughts. The test zip file i created has 18,375 files and weighs in at 3.27 MB. That must mean that the filenames storage takes up that much space. And that zips don't optimize that part? or something else?Yes, the filenames take up that much space. I tried it with compression and it didn't make a difference in size.-vixay (June 10, 2009, 07:10 AM)
Scanning for files was slower than everything/locate, i don't know how they do it, but they can scan filenames super fast. just a thought, to see if it could be sped up.It's not the scanning that's slow, it's the creation of all the zero-byte files that slows things down.-vixay (June 10, 2009, 07:10 AM)
The date/time is not preserved for filenames. This was not an original requirement but when i think about it, it's better to have that information preserved (not required though). If it will make the program slower then it should not be there (or maybe as an optional thing).It shouldn't make it too much slower. I'll add it in.-vixay (June 10, 2009, 07:10 AM)
Can you share your ideas on how you did it? You used IZarc to compress, did you just use flags for the command line , or dump the filename list and then create the zip?Just command-line flags (izarcc.exe -a -r -p -c0). So, the flow goes like this:-vixay (June 10, 2009, 07:10 AM)
Is there a way to recreate file/folder structure from source to target but without any content?
better yet, is it possible to zip it up?-vixay (June 09, 2009, 07:14 AM)
