image comparer desktop software

[Contro]

now is finished 22.06.2013.17.32
in the left column the options to find
I will comment......
I was eating by the way..... need to finish first
 

Is general recognition. An interesting voyage to my images, but don't see powerfult searching options like search for a determined face.
You can obtain faces "in general".

 

Edited 22.06.2013.18.41 :
I don't worry about the space for reindexing, but seems a program needing for powerful options.
I have read the comments about other similar program and beginning to think is not a easy question find a program with fullfill your requeriments
 

[sicknero]

After saying you may be out of luck, here's something I've found: Image Forensics Search System

-4wd (June 22, 2013, 02:01 AM)

Apologies for cropping your post but I didn't want to fill the page. I got quite excited when I saw this so downloaded it and gave it a pretty thorough test drive today.

So, firstly it's pretty old. The website only mentions OSs up to XP and the installer looks old. It also requires JRE but, I just used Uniextract to extract the IFSS installer which includes a java folder and it seemed (at first - more on that shortly) to run fine like that without JRE on my PC. I'm guessing though that this also means that the included java version is pretty ancient.

Anyway. I randomly picked a folder of 103 photos of my local town, picked one out and created a selection of edits of it... I mirrored it, shrank it to a 75x56 thumbnail, grayscaled it, graffitied it, and rotated it through 90 degrees.

The program is easy enough to use, a nice simple layout and interface. You just load your initial pic, select a few options (some of which I still don't understand entirely...) then point it to the directory you want to search and let it go.

It's pretty slow. Took around 5 minutes to scan the 103 pics in the target directory, and while it's working javaw.exe is taking about 90-95% of cpu cycles which also means that the program itself is more or less unresponsive while working. I mostly had to use task manager if I wanted to cancel a search.

Results-wise through, it's great. It picked up on all the edits I'd made with the exception of the 90 degree rotation, though to be fair I think most duplicate finders fail on that too with the exception of Visipics.

It's different in its approach. When you select the target directory the program scans this and loads it into a window from which you can then select which pictures you want for comparison. Select all is the useful default, but this part of the process itself takes ages... two or three minutes for my 103 photos.

Then when it's finished, it doesn't show you a list of "hits" but lists all the files in the target directory, sorted hierarchically according to percentage match.

So far so good, but onto the main problem... I went on to try it on a folder of about 5,400 downloaded pictures, and five times it just exited itself after a few minutes for no apparent reason, before it had even loaded the folder. I even made a copy of the folder and renamed all the pics in it, thinking it might be an issue with path lengths (you know what long names downloaded pics can have...) but that didn't help. I then put aside my non-install version and ran the installer properly, but that made no difference.

So, mixed results really. I'm just running it now on a directory of 934 National Geographic photos and it seems to be fine with that (Edit - completed successfully). If I can find some definite cut-off point beyond which the program won't work, then I think it's definitely a keeper - depite its slowness and cpu-hogging java, it's still the only program of its type that I know of.

Interestingly, even when I ran the installer it still creates a java directory in the program folder rather than actually installing java. Not sure what to make of that.

Ultimately I guess, a better solution is if we could hunt down a duplicate finder that has the option to only show cross-directory matches, e.g. show when a pic in Folder A matches a pic in Folder B, but not when a pic in Folder B matches a pic in Folder B. I've been looking through various programs today but none of them seem to do this.

[evamaria]

I'd been very intrigued by 4wd's find, and I want to say thanks for sharing - even if such an exotic program doesn't live up to our expectations, it's always a good thing to extend our knowledge beyond the classics. (I didn't find that prog by my searches, searching for 1 hour though, so it also seems to be a good idea to include the term "forensic" in your search whenever it might apply.)

Also, thank you very much, sicknero, for this big effort (that I, for instance, didn't have time to undertake) and sharing the results. Now you say, "Ultimately I guess, a better solution is if we could hunt down a duplicate finder that has the option to only show cross-directory matches, e.g. show when a pic in Folder A matches a pic in Folder B, but not when a pic in Folder B matches a pic in Folder B. I've been looking through various programs today but none of them seem to do this." - would you mind sharing the list?

(AntiTwin's got that feature "compare a folder against another", but of course, it's not specialised - I regularly even use it for photos, with 90 or 95 p.c. setting, with good results, but I've never tried to use it for specific tasks, like heavily cropped photos, etc., so I suppose it being a "general comparer", it will not be best here.)

And then, VisiPics perhaps gets too much prominence here? And Visual Similarity Duplicate Image Finder (40$, from MindGems) doesn't get enough prominence, presumably!

In fact, their screenshots are not very enticing, but people on the web say it's got the best algorithm, among those "photo comparing" programs - would you consider, sicknero, to trial it for us, with the same set of tasks you have used to trial the "forensic" thing? (Or is it impossible to do a "folder against folder compare" with it, even with the "prof" version?)

That MindGems thing has got a crippled "standard" edition, 25$, but without filters, and the regular 40$ edition, called "prof"... and then, there is a 500$ "corporate" edition, the sole difference being / seeming to be that it's "scriptable" or something, i.e. you can trigger it, with attributes, by command line.

Now that's a little bit ridiculous if we assume that the 40$ and the 500$ version probably share the same algorithm(s) - it would be interesting to know if there are 500$ programs that apply much BETTER algorithms than do their 50$ counterparts...

Anyway, if we assume they're not crooks, that'd mean their 500$ version was worth the price, after all... and that'd mean their 40$ version would be a definite "steal" - best buy of all those programs out there that we know (since they seem to indicate it's the same algorithms for 40, and for 500$...).

Hence my request to kindly trial this for us, could be a real discovery.

[sicknero]

Oh good grief, how did I miss that..??? I guess I was stuck in a "need something new" mindset and didn't even see that option in AntiTwin. It does do what I was asking for and, it even has a "Search for a certain file" option, both of which work in the image search mode.

The results aren't great though - it picks up the grayscale image and the graffiti one but misses the mirror image and the thumbnail. The percentage selector only goes down to 60%.

The others that I have are Visipics which as you say is popular, but it does deserve it although it fails to pick up the grayscale for me. Duplicate Cleaner 3, Awesome Duplicate Photo Finder, AllDup, AntiTwin of course... some others too, I'm a bit of a software collector.
Actually just got a new one today, Similar Image Finder, which I'm quite impressed with so far, it's picked up all my test pics except for the mirrored one. It also has an option to ignore cross-directory matches, so I've been in touch with the developer today to see if they're open to feature requests and if it would be possible to add the other option.

But the Mindgems one, yes I'd love to take on a trial of it. I'll check it out properly when I get a chance, must first see if the trial download is functional enough to test it properly. Must admit I personally like the look of the screenshots, but then I don't much like the way that GUI design has been going for the last few years anyway.
I'd not considered payware, as the site where this initially came up is freeware only, and it's an interesting point about the difference in licenses. Reminds me of a cd burner that has a freeware version and then a commercial version that costs hundreds.

I'd want to spead more time on it probably... the way I tested the Forensics one was just based on what I'd personally like such a program to do, and also as you can see I've not properly looked at all the ones I already have! The point about cropped pictures is a good one too, I'd not thought of that and I think it definitely deserves including in a group of test pictures.

I'll post back in a few days anyway and let you know how it goes with the Mindgem one.

[evamaria]

Great, and thank you very much!

For people who quickly want to check the components of this prog are about 25 years old:

http://www.mindgems....SDIF-Screenshots.htm

(even more horrible than FastStone Image Viewer)

And the last image there is the filter window, and indeed, I don't see any "compare folder against folder" option there - it would be a pity if the lack of this functionality put aside the potentially very best prog of them all...

Of course, the "crop test" is far more important than any other, for "real use" - detecting "stolen" photos - but, oops, it just occured to me that we're speaking of photos here that are already on your hdd, and exclusively of these, so for detecting stolen photos within the web, you'd need google's photo search anyway... and THAT's perhaps the reason there is no advanced development, and no tremendously good 500$ tool out there: it's just not worthwile, for the aforementioned reason!

But this being said, a photographer who takes photos, of the same subjects, from wide-angle down to big zoom, could always be interested in having software to prefetch groups of the same subjects

- but would not be willing to spend 500$ for this, so the lesson here is, whenever you don't understand the market, think again. And yes, I'm able to imagine special police use of such software: comparing their "very special" photo collection (vice squad) to what YOU might have on your hdd - but there are special services for that in every country, so world-wide, this very special market would take about 300 licenses, make it 500, so we wouldn't speak of 500$ software here, but of 5,000$ software.

And as for our photographer, he wouldn't want to compare one photo with a set of others, most of the time, but would want to constitute groups of similar photos - again, the missing function "explains itself" by the scarcity of the demand for it?

But then, even for a wedding photographer, it'd be of interest to choose one person, on one photo, and then have automatically gathered all photos on which that person is present, even in a group, and this not only applies to the bride, but also to any person who might buy photos then (ok, they will browse anyway, but out of 1,000 photos, then? There will always be a pre-selection, of perhaps 150 "best shots", and then, 800 shots among which only SOME might be interesting to this person or another, so here software assistance might be of big help).

And then, why the need to put the "single" photo into a folder of its own, in order to have it "compared" to all the others? That's cumbersome! Why not a function "compare the current photo against all within a certain folder (and including its sub-folders)"?

All the more so since such functionality, coding-wise, and contrary to the implementation of better compare algorithms, is so easy a child could code it!

Ok, that's been written for some developers who might check google for mentions of their progs, and then read some remarks in order to get some ideas.

As for google pic search, if I were up to steal photos, I'd turn them by 180 degrees and heavily crop them, considering that light tonal fiddling would certainly not cause google to differentiate them, and heavy hampering with color, brightness and contrast would make the photo unusable anyway, so turning around then cropping seems to be the "best" policy - would be interesting if google detects such falsifications, especially, of course, if the cropping isn't centered.

And to finish this pêle-mêle post, google, some years ago, had photographed the streets of Germany. Then it appeared, inadvertently (!!! how do you do THAT???) they had, by this photographing buildings, recorded "sms" and other electronic messages sent by the tenants of these houses, too. And now, just these days, years later, German press discusses that these recordings have not yet been deleted (as they had promised once, though).

So much for applied forensics. ;-)

[sicknero]

Great, and thank you very much!

For people who quickly want to check the components of this prog are about 25 years old:

http://www.mindgems....SDIF-Screenshots.htm

(even more horrible than FastStone Image Viewer)

And the last image there is the filter window, and indeed, I don't see any "compare folder against folder" option there - it would be a pity if the lack of this functionality put aside the potentially very best prog of them all...

-evamaria (June 23, 2013, 07:50 PM)

But the second screenshot on the page shows a "Search for images" dialog with add/remove image buttons, which looks like it will fit the bill. I really like this kind of GUI, and FS Viewer too : D

Of course, the "crop test" is far more important than any other, for "real use" - detecting "stolen" photos - but, oops, it just occured to me that we're speaking of photos here that are already on your hdd, and exclusively of these, so for detecting stolen photos within the web, you'd need google's photo search anyway... and THAT's perhaps the reason there is no advanced development, and no tremendously good 500$ tool out there: it's just not worthwile, for the aforementioned reason!

But this being said, a photographer who takes photos, of the same subjects, from wide-angle down to big zoom, could always be interested in having software to prefetch groups of the same subjects

- but would not be willing to spend 500$ for this, so the lesson here is, whenever you don't understand the market, think again. And yes, I'm able to imagine special police use of such software: comparing their "very special" photo collection (vice squad) to what YOU might have on your hdd - but there are special services for that in every country, so world-wide, this very special market would take about 300 licenses, make it 500, so we wouldn't speak of 500$ software here, but of 5,000$ software.

And as for our photographer, he wouldn't want to compare one photo with a set of others, most of the time, but would want to constitute groups of similar photos - again, the missing function "explains itself" by the scarcity of the demand for it?

But then, even for a wedding photographer, it'd be of interest to choose one person, on one photo, and then have automatically gathered all photos on which that person is present, even in a group, and this not only applies to the bride, but also to any person who might buy photos then (ok, they will browse anyway, but out of 1,000 photos, then? There will always be a pre-selection, of perhaps 150 "best shots", and then, 800 shots among which only SOME might be interesting to this person or another, so here software assistance might be of big help).

-evamaria (June 23, 2013, 07:50 PM)

Yes, usage is debatable I guess but having got it into my mind to find such functionality, the usage takes back seat for the time being. I do like your example though of finding photos of a certain person ... we're into the realms of facial recognition now, but I'm wondering how the "Human" mode in IFSS might handle it. I'll check that this evening.

Other potential uses could be, perhaps I have a thumbnail and want to know if I have a full size image of it already, or perhaps I have a folder of edited photos and can't remember where the originals are. Maybe I like a landscape or whatever, and want to search for similar pictures on my hard drive to create a slideshow or collection of wallpapers. They're just a few that come to mind.

And then, why the need to put the "single" photo into a folder of its own, in order to have it "compared" to all the others? That's cumbersome! Why not a function "compare the current photo against all within a certain folder (and including its sub-folders)"?

All the more so since such functionality, coding-wise, and contrary to the implementation of better compare algorithms, is so easy a child could code it!

-evamaria (June 23, 2013, 07:50 PM)

Yes it is cumbersome but I was thinking of it as a possible workaround to make a program do something it wasn't really intended for (one of my favourite pastimes : D ). However AntiTwin as I discovered does have such a "load image and search for it" function, it's a pity that the results are a bit disappointing. I'm guessing though that the Mindgem one can do this too, looking at the screenshots.

I've no idea how easy the coding is, I certainly couldn't do it! I never progressed further than writing text adventures in BASIC on a Commodore Pet...

Ok, that's been written for some developers who might check google for mentions of their progs, and then read some remarks in order to get some ideas.

As for google pic search, if I were up to steal photos, I'd turn them by 180 degrees and heavily crop them, considering that light tonal fiddling would certainly not cause google to differentiate them, and heavy hampering with color, brightness and contrast would make the photo unusable anyway, so turning around then cropping seems to be the "best" policy - would be interesting if google detects such falsifications, especially, of course, if the cropping isn't centered.

And to finish this pêle-mêle post, google, some years ago, had photographed the streets of Germany. Then it appeared, inadvertently (!!! how do you do THAT???) they had, by this photographing buildings, recorded "sms" and other electronic messages sent by the tenants of these houses, too. And now, just these days, years later, German press discusses that these recordings have not yet been deleted (as they had promised once, though).

So much for applied forensics. ;-)

-evamaria (June 23, 2013, 07:50 PM)

Google Image Search is surprisingly efficient, it copes well with mirrored and graffittied images though I've not tried it with rotated or cropped ones. I'll add it to my to-do list, just out of interest. What amazes me is that it apparently searches "the whole web" and comes back with results in a matter of seconds. Maybe I'm missing something there.

Data collection yes. They're in the news again for that this week, but that's a bit off-topic even for me so I'll leave it there.

[evamaria]

Hello Sicknero

"But the second screenshot on the page shows a "Search for images" dialog with add/remove image buttons, which looks like it will fit the bill."

I didn't get this by looking myself, now I understand: If you're right, this screen would represent a "virtual folder", with 1 or more such photos, to which all the others then would be compared: This would indeed be an almost perfect solution for the task, especially if you collect some photos here that are similar in a certain way - but doubtful if the algorithm is able then to "get" that common feature... This relates to:

"Face recognition". In fact, in practical use, it would be way beyond identification of multiple photos of a certain person like in "wedding" photography (or similar situations): Have a certain detail on numerous photos, let's say a landscape with a barn, and that barn from numerous perspectives (front, sides, back), in different areas of the respective photos, and in various zoom grades: It would be helpful to have software able to identify that barn, OR even similar barns, upon request, which is two different tasks, in fact:

- setting "try to find every instance of this object / person / barn / whatever" (which would imply that within a certain photo, you do a virtual cropping of some area in order for the software to "know" what exactly you are after, too, and why not such "selective zones" on more than one photo at a time!), which means the algorithm would have to make guesses, and when in doubt, EX-clude the find

- setting "try to find similar objects / barns / persons..." which would mean that when target is a woman, the algorithm would IN-clude other women, on condition that their hairdressing / hair color or face shape or something is similar: there could be options like "by predominant color", "by predominant shape", or combinations of such

"want to search for similar pictures on my hard drive to create a slideshow" - here again, the algorithm should be able to search for shapes or tonal ranges, by settings done in palettes or such - of course, development would be rather demanding, and if you think twice, it probably occurs to you that it's Adobe indeed who should have implemented such functionality in their image CATALOGING software, brand-new Lightroom 5, since

- LR is sold in sufficient quantities alone, in order to justify development cost, and

- such a "find similar" functionality has its natural place in image catalog software, i.e. it really gets of interest for the prof. photographers having collected a high 5-digit number, or a 6-digit number of photographs:

It's all about building up "virtual collections", any time, years later if needed, instead of forcing you to foresee your later needs, and do heavy tagging up-front. So, you even could say, photo compare software is a software category that would not even exist, had Adobe done their homework right!


"They're in the news again for that this week" - that's why I mused how to get sms by pretending to take photos - indeed, at the end of the day, it would probably be "sufficient" to have google image search's functionality only... but for your own stuff... and without google indexing your own stuff and putting it into the www, at the same time!


"I was thinking of it as a possible workaround" - of course, a simple macro would do that, but the above "virtual folder" or "collection" functionality seems to be really good - another example, btw, how to NOT do screenshots: They should have put there SOME photos only, in that screenshot, in order to make people see that it's kind of "form" to enter "examples to search for" there, but no, they filled it all up, so that for me (and some others, I suppose), the intended functionality was obscured.


Age of components: I'm not against the respective "design" of the screen, but I think the "texture" is awful, by this meaning the visuals of the "background" of the components used there, "looks like really old Delphi stuff" - not the repartition of the controls, etc., which is a completely different thing. (Btw, Foxit Reader 6, brandnew, is a good example for very "modern-style" visuals.)

As for FS Viewer, both aspects ain't the way I like them: the components obviously are very old, for one, but worse, FS doesn't give you the option to get rid of some controls (and they don't even answer your mails when you say you're willing to BUY MULTIPLE (!) licenses if the introduce such an option), i.e. you cannot hide all those toolbars cluttering the whole screen, and so, for just VIEWING photos (and for which you simply don't need all these controls then), it's really, really ugly - the Swiss product "Fast Image Viewer" (free version available if you can do with just some standard formats) is at the other extreme: Really fast - fastest thing I ever trialled for picture viewers (well, it pre-loads pictures, among other measures), and a real beautiful screen (and yes, you can access the palettes, for processing your photos, by shortcuts, or by moving the mouse to specific screen borders) - highly recommended!

Again with regards to FS, their FS capture, even in their latest paid version, is unable to switch the target of the screenshot back and forth, from clipboard to file and back, with a keyboard shortcut, which would be a very simple thing for the developer, but he just doesn't do it, and in order to toggle by mouse, you have to display the program window, to begin with, when in fact the big interest of such a program lies in it being available and ready for use even when it's minimized - the same applies to multiple other commands in FSC neither available but by heavy mouse movements and screen clutter. So, ergonomics-wise, FS products are catastrophical, and FS developers don't take any advice whatsoever.

As for photo viewers, I suppose DO isn't bad at all here, and XYplorer did a really good job with their special viewer pane last year (except for hiding it within the file (!) menu...) - I'm VERY pleased with my XY lifetime license now! (Ok, that's not free when FSV is, but as said, FIV's free too if you don't need it for special file formats.)


"I never progressed further than writing text adventures in BASIC on a Commodore Pet..." - that's why I so strongly recommend AHK: It's easy, and its returns are tremendous, meaning just some lines of code will so strongly facilitate your tasks! It's like VB for Applic, but much easier, and for your whole system, not just for MS things!


Any experience with the MindGems thing? Will ask again next week-end. ;-)