Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:04:30 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, mdc@prgmr.com Subject: Re: Is there such thing as a 'soft checksum' tool? Message-ID: <4aa6100e.tHFPjmIiNAiRpJ%2Bf%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <200909071451.24123.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <20090906012107.E2731B7DD@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil> <4AA47981.1090103@prgmr.com> <200909071451.24123.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> wrote: > On Monday 07 September 2009 05:09:53 Michael David Crawford wrote: > > > M> I'm looking for a pseudo-checksum tool for use with > > > M> cataloging images. > > One way you could approach it might be to use a blur filter ... > > Small differences in individual pixels would be blurred away. > ... the above does not work, because of compression anyway. > Just because you think of an image as a bitmap, does not mean > it's stored as such. Certainly it is the decompressed payloads of the JPEG etc. files that are to be compared, rather than the files themselves. It would never have occurred to me that anyone participating in the discussion might have thought otherwise. However, thinking about this inquiry and JPEG in the same sentence has given me an idea that might help the OP: JPEG is a "lossy" compression, with the degree of loss related to the chosen image quality, so two "similar" images might become identical -- or at least more similar -- if compressed to a sufficiently low quality using the JPEG algorithm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4aa6100e.tHFPjmIiNAiRpJ%2Bf%perryh>