Re: Updated patch for Detecting Duplicates in F-Spot
- From: Alvaro del Castillo <acs openshine com>
- To: Bengt Thuree <bengt thuree com>
- Cc: f-spot-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Updated patch for Detecting Duplicates in F-Spot
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:27:28 +0200
On mar, 2005-09-06 at 07:54 +0900, Bengt Thuree wrote:
> On Må, 2005-09-05, 08:07 pm, Alvaro del Castillo skrev:
> > Hi!
> > On lun, 2005-09-05 at 11:02 +0800, Indulis Bernsteins wrote:
> >> What about also using the EXIF data, as well as the filename, date
> >> modified, and other "metadata" (implicit or explicit).
> > Using the EXIF data has the problem that some images could not have EXIF
> > data for them.
> If we use a point system, then if the image do not have any MetaTag
> information at all, then the points associated with this information is 0,
> and the only option is file data as well as MD5 data.
> >> If you have 2 images, you can easily look at the EXIF information
> >> common between the 2. If the camera body serial number is the same,
> >> and the date/time of shooting is the same, and the EXIF stored image
> >> name is the same, you don't have to check the MD5 sum to know that the
> >> 2 are at least derived from the same image. You can then just check
> >> file size. If they are the same, then you've got a match.
> > Currently F-Spot code follows this approach:
> > http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/f-spot/src/PhotoStore.cs?rev=1.71
> > But I think that the MD5 signature is very useful because you can be
> > sure the two files are really the same without error.
> I think that he did not say we should not stop doing the MD5 stuff, but
> having a point system where MD5 is part of the points. But just looking at
> the EXIF data is quicker...
Sure, it is quicker to look to the EXIF data if you don't have invest
already the time to compute the MD5 of the file. The EXIF data could be
very useful in other searchings, for example date searching, but for
finding duplicates, I find MD5 a more strong solution.
> >> I think there is a real advantage to losing the "filesystem" oriented
> >> approach to managing images, and moving to a metadata-based one.
> >> f-spot could become not just an image viewer, but also a darn good
> >> image manager!
> > Yes! But we have to be very careful and not introduce complex concepts
> > or configurations that would make F-Spot a solution for Professional
> > people.
> And why not? As long as F-Spot's user-interface is kept simple and well
> configured. Perhaps with some advance options buttons which a majority of
> the users do not need to touch...? The more people who uses F-Spot the
> better I would say... :) And much better for Linux :))
I have right now played a little with imgSeek and it is really complex
for a end user. If the user has strange things in the window, like
buttons she doesn't need to touch, starts to feel not very well with the
tool becuase she doesn't feel is in complete control of it.
] [Thread Prev