From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 8 08:11:08 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45511106568F for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:11:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E46E8FC1D for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 08:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id n888B7i3075164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:11:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id n888B7ko075163; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA14937; Tue, 8 Sep 09 01:01:23 PDT Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:04:30 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net Message-Id: <4aa6100e.tHFPjmIiNAiRpJ+f%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20090906012107.E2731B7DD@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil> <4AA47981.1090103@prgmr.com> <200909071451.24123.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <200909071451.24123.mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, mdc@prgmr.com Subject: Re: Is there such thing as a 'soft checksum' tool? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:11:08 -0000 Mel Flynn 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.