Author Topic: photo duplicate scanner (Read 113380 times)

Curt · « **Reply #50 on:** August 19, 2009, 07:34 AM »

Just bumping; it is TODAY!

I've "always" thought that the normal asking price for Bolide Image Comparer, $35, was a little too high, but this one-day-offer, coming up Wednesday, should make the price just right. $23 at Bits du Jour / Daily-Deals. I already bought it for $35, and I am satisfied with the program.

http://daily-deals.i...ware/image-comparer/
http://www.bitsdujou...ware/image-comparer/

-Curt (August 14, 2009, 02:17 AM)

mwb1100 · « **Reply #51 on:** August 19, 2009, 01:00 PM »

$23 at Bits du Jour / Daily-Deals.
-Curt (August 19, 2009, 07:34 AM)

Just to point out that $23 is a typo - the deal is for $14.

Curt · « **Reply #52 on:** August 19, 2009, 01:13 PM »

- indeed :-)

Thanks for being awake and telling!

http://daily-deals.i...ware/image-comparer/
http://www.bitsdujou...ware/image-comparer/

sajman99 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 28, 2009, 08:27 PM »

Oh My Gosh! Don't look now, but there's a new sheriff in town. AntiDupl.NET is free, fast, accurate, and portable. If you don't have .NET installed, you can get the last generation AntiDupl which works just fine, but without the more fully developed interface and granular control of the current generation AntiDupl.NET.

http://antidupl.narod.ru Russian site (Belarusian developer)
http://antidupl.naro...u/english/index.html English section of the site

Innuendo · « **Reply #54 on:** September 29, 2009, 12:54 PM »

Oh My Gosh! Don't look now, but there's a new sheriff in town. AntiDupl.NET is free, fast, accurate, and portable.
-sajman99 (September 28, 2009, 08:27 PM)

And holy crap! It's small. It's a mere 673KB download. I've downloaded it but not tried it yet, but I just had to comment on the small file size.

sajman99 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 29, 2009, 01:58 PM »

Innuendo, I should have mentioned the small download size. After testing bunches of these similar image tools, there's just too many good points to make about AntiDupl.NET. I didn't want to go overboard on details, but AntiDupl.NET is simply damn good software actively maintained by a developer who obviously knows about image comparison.

Curt · « **Reply #56 on:** September 29, 2009, 02:08 PM »

- the author was afraid the program now has become too bloated; it used to take up 373 KB...!

sajman99 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 29, 2009, 02:37 PM »

- the author was afraid the program now has become too bloated; it used to take up 373 KB...!
-Curt (September 29, 2009, 02:08 PM)

Ha! Curt, be sure and test the smaller (last generation) AntiDupl also. Its interface is quite primitive, but it's speed is blazing with very good accuracy! Actually, there's no reason you can't use both AntiDupl and AntiDupl.NET conflict-free as both are portable apps.

Curt · « **Reply #58 on:** September 29, 2009, 02:49 PM »

Considering that this is freeware, it is almost fantastic good! My 7.810 pictures were scanned in 20 minutes, and the result included all SIMILAR images, not just exact copies. AND they were all commented with a surprisingly accurate percentage, telling how similar they were. Bravo! With this said, only 5 out of 25 pics were actually ~~similar~~ copies.

clickable thumbs:

photo duplicate scanner

This 'mistake' is very understandable:

photo duplicate scanner

- but I don't think these should have been listed as similar; "4.85 different":

photo duplicate scanner

Other than that, I am impressed.

sajman99 · « **Reply #59 on:** September 29, 2009, 03:06 PM »

Curt, regarding the 4.85% match- I cannot tell from the pic (the right side is cut off) how big those particular images are. I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but (1) if those images are very small, then many of these comparison utilities cannot properly compare them. Mathematically, it's just too difficult to overlay a grid on a very small pic and make accurate comparison.
(2) I also cannot tell if you have "check on defect" selected in the options. That setting could account for some weird results which are clearly not similar images.

Innuendo · « **Reply #60 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:54 PM »

After testing bunches of these similar image tools, there's just too many good points to make about AntiDupl.NET.
-sajman99 (September 29, 2009, 01:58 PM)

I've read enough threads on DC about dupe-finding software that if the dupe-finding junkie sajman99 is impressed by such a program it's best to just save some time and grab it right away. I have read your adventures of trying (and buying!) almost every dupe-checking program under the sun so if you say something is good then chances are it's going to awesome for us average users with average needs in this area.

Curt · « **Reply #61 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:46 AM »

@sajman99 - both pictures were 1600x1200, and check on defect was checked.

One thing I forgot to tell is that the CPU usage was between 65 - 80 % all of the time. Quite high. Come to think of it, it COULD be even higher, as I have Task Manager Pro limiting any CPU usage above 80%

But still, as also Innuendo is implying, this really is a fine piece of software. Although the author could use some pedagogical help to make the GUI even more user-friendly/logic.

sajman99 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 30, 2009, 11:25 AM »

@Innuendo: Your characterization of me as a "dupe finding junkie" is regrettably true.

Thanks for the comments. Positive remarks help to encourage new people to post here-- just my two cents.

Not to stir it up too much, but some folks are likely to prefer the free AntiDupl.NET rather than some previously mentioned commercial software. Surprising, but true.

@Curt: I've rarely seen a mismatch at that low percentage--usually the accuracy doesn't start diminishing until well above 10%. IMHO that artistic blue pic 'outfromthedeep' is what causes this anomaly. I mean, there really isn't much detail there for an image comparison tool to process--it's a blue amorphous mass with a small pyramid-like object in the middle. Regardless of size and/or resolution, this low-detail image could be the weak link. The same kind of incorrect results often occur if you have lots of pics with white backgrounds. Bottom line: no matter how precise these programs become, the human eye remains superior (but slower).

If the CPU usage is of great concern, you might try adjusting the thread count in the advanced options. Thanks for sharing your impressions.

Innuendo · « **Reply #63 on:** October 01, 2009, 09:32 AM »

@Innuendo: Your characterization of me as a "dupe finding junkie" is regrettably true. Thanks for the comments. Positive remarks help to encourage new people to post here-- just my two cents.
-sajman99 (September 30, 2009, 11:25 AM)

There are a lot of software junkies here at DC so you aren't alone. I'll leave it to you to discover who they are and where their areas of expertise due to being a junkie lies.

sajman99 · « **Reply #64 on:** October 02, 2009, 01:38 PM »

Fantastic as it is, here are a few (admittedly) minor issues regarding AntiDupl.NET:

(1) There should be an option to remember the preview window position. I have a widescreen monitor and don't need 1/2 the screen (ie. default position) for image preview. Yes, I can slide previews over every time I use the app, but that becomes a real pain.

(2) The new update feature should be optional so it doesn't check every time the app is launched. Yes, that can be configured via firewall, but a "check for new version" feature would be preferable.

(3) I see no reason to identify the first match as Group 0; nobody I know starts counting 0,1,2,3... What's that about?

(4) The maximum threshold difference is presently 15% and should be at least 30% for flexible usage. Those users who have captioned images in a collection are perhaps aware how those pics challenge image comparison tools and require a much wider tolerance for detection.

(5) For users with older computers and/or huge image collections, a cache option could be preferable. The commercial apps previously mentioned in this thread and most of the best freeware tools have some form of cache management.

(6) As is, the columns are sortable, but an option to view the matches in high-to-low % (like Dup Detector has) would be preferable.

@Curt: If you are inclined to elaborate on AntiDupl.NET's GUI shortcomings, I am certainly interested in your thoughts.

sajman99 · « **Reply #65 on:** November 09, 2009, 01:21 PM »

Did anybody ever try MeeSoft's minimalist file manager Commander which I mentioned some while back?

In numerous online discussions of duplicate finders, I haven't seen a mention of this software despite its excellent dupe detecting abilities. Of course, as a file manager it gets eclipsed by more well known robust apps, but in the narrow context of duplicate finding it remains my favorite file manager.

sajman99 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 25, 2009, 02:25 PM »

Just a few points on the freeware MeeSoft Commander...

(1) As a binary dupe finder, Commander is among the fastest in existence. I cannot definitely say Commander is the fastest binary dupe finder, but I do know it has blazing speed.

(2) As a similar images finder, Commander exhibits very good speed and accuracy. It may not be the fastest or the most accurate similar images finder, but it belongs on a relatively short list with respect to those two variables.

The UI of this minimalist file manager is really the only glaring weakness. AFAIK the image matches are not displayed as thumbnails

so the matches have to be loaded into an external viewer for convenient side-by-side observation. Even though there's no shortage of image viewers/editors, this extra step might be a real pain for some folks.

(3) Not sure why developer Michael Vinther removed the .zip download, but MeeSoft Commander can still be run as a portable app if desired.

Curt · « **Reply #67 on:** November 26, 2009, 01:11 PM »

- yes, I've tried MeeSoft Commander very recently, and because of your post I've tested it once more, today. I still don't like it. Given the size (and the price), it is quite an advanced file manager, but it also is a 'pita' to use. I don't think it is any faster or slower than most of my other dup-finders - but of course, I don't search for binary duplicates!

The first time that I tried to scan for image duplicates, I got curious and deliberately turned up the "similarity/difference-percentage" way too much, to 19% (default is 9%), to see what would happen. And surely there were many results: 4.700!! But I was thinking, How is the user supposed to know what percentage to choose? If I have two identical photos but one is 1024x768 and the other is 800x600, how big is then the difference, in percent? The program doesn't give much help on anything, neither on this.

I re-started the program and repeated the test, now with the setting "1%", and half an hour later the result was perfect. It has to be said, or even repeated: It is a high quality program. But still I don't like it.

sajman99 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 26, 2009, 02:40 PM »

Greetings, Curt--thanks for the feedback. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

I suppose if you don't have reason to search for binary duplicates, then MeeSoft Commander could be less useful. It's just that so many developers claim they're the fastest and even go so far as to have the word "fast" in the name of their dupe software. Then I use Commander to check for dupes and OMG it is truly fast.

Regarding the default 9% similarity tolerance for images, I agree it's too high and I generally use 5%. Of course, the more images you are processing then the lower the % as a practical matter.

Considering Commander is not utilizing cache (most fast tools do) in its image comparison, I find its processing speed to be very good. If your intent is to process your entire image collection, then yeah--it's gonna take a while. If however you want to process a folder full of images prior to moving them into your full collection, then Commander is a very good tool for that task IMO.

When you refer to "perfect" results, I assume you mean the accuracy of the program and I definitely agree. My testing indicates Commander is among the most accurate image dupe scanners, but it's just a shame the matches are presented in the limited manner they are (ie. no thumbnails and no side-by-side view).

The main reason I posted about the minimalist MeeSoft Commander is because I had never seen it mentioned in the context of similar image utilities. I'm sure there are other file managers which can find similar images, but I haven't discovered them yet.

btw- just for the sheer entertainment value, check out the portable VisualPhotoCompare and then tell me MeeSoft Commander isn't fast.

Curt · « **Reply #69 on:** November 26, 2009, 03:47 PM »

12.000 seconds, to scan & compare My Pictures. Well, I ASSUME (calculated). I didn't actual perform the grand test. Instead I tested on a slim folder with ten almost identical photos. VSC is S L O W , indeed, but the result was accurate.

Quite good for a 734 kb program that hasn't been updated for more than four years
(but yet is running well on Vista).

sajman99 · « **Reply #70 on:** November 26, 2009, 04:16 PM »

... VSC is S L O W , indeed, but the result was accurate...
-Curt (November 26, 2009, 03:47 PM)

Yep, you're right about the speed. Just to be clear, I was NOT recommending VisualPhotoCompare as a viable solution because it's so incredibly slow it's really unuseable for more than a few hundred images. Not sure hardware makes much difference because I have a pretty solid system and VPC is slower than molasses.

I only thought of it because it's so slow and because I just ate some turkey today. I mean, VisualPhotoCompare is a real turkey.

I keep it in my collection only because it's portable and it reminds me how difficult it is to achieve speed in these apps.

Innuendo · « **Reply #71 on:** November 28, 2009, 09:25 AM »

I haven't seen this one discussed in the thread yet & I used to use it a long time ago. I was wondering your opinion, sajman, on d'peg! (yeah, the exclamation point is part of the name)? Doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a while, but what I remember of it the program wasn't bad & had quite a few features.

You can get it at http://somewareonthe.net or http://www.gotdupes.com .

sajman99 · « **Reply #72 on:** November 28, 2009, 07:41 PM »

Innuendo, I haven't tried d'peg! in probably 3-4 years--you had to pick one that I don't actually have in my collection.

d'peg! was mentioned early in this thread by Kimchee53 (now almost 2 years ago!). Way back when I tried it (IIRC) it wasn't particularly intuitive and it was very slow (ie. required leave-it-overnight processing). Of course, it's probably much improved today-- I don't honestly know.

Generally speaking, the older commercial image dupe finders such as DoublePics and Odin Professional have long since been surpassed in performance by well-known freewares like Dup Detector and VisiPics.

Innuendo · « **Reply #73 on:** November 28, 2009, 10:45 PM »

Innuendo, I haven't tried d'peg! in probably 3-4 years--you had to pick one that I don't actually have in my collection.
-sajman99 (November 28, 2009, 07:41 PM)

Someone's got to push your obsession to ever greater heights & extremes!

sajman99 · « **Reply #74 on:** December 23, 2009, 02:11 PM »

AntiDupl.NET has been updated to version 1.4.0.0.

However, IMO it really isn't a significant step forward. The columns are now draggable, but out-of-the-box they are scrambled (in reverse order I think

) requiring re-ordering to user preference.

More significantly, v1.4.0.0 seems much less responsive on my machine. When using the arrow keys to cycle through the matches, there is now a noticeable lag which wasn't present before. Seems like the entire results are "refreshed" with each tap of the arrow keys.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm sticking with the older AntiDupl.NET 1.3.0.0 for the time being.