Y
Yousuf Khan
I think in this case it was trying to load 9000+ photos.
Yousuf Khan
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I think in this case it was trying to load 9000+ photos.
Yousuf Khan
P
Peter Jason
I think in this case it was trying to load 9000+ photos.
Yousuf Khan
Yes, that is too many. I don't go over about 5000.
However, you can use the landscape/portrait selection to cut the
number back...if you know the rough proportion of each.
Peter.
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Peter Jason said:I regularly load up 1000 - 3000 photos without any trouble. I have
Win7 SP1 64bit.
(I've read the subsequent posts where Yousuf said it was 9000+ and
someone said yes, that is too many.)
Regardless of whether it actually is too many, unless you really are
completely unsure of which ones might be duplicates, it is going to be
worth dividing them - even if only into two groups - if you can. (I
presume most image-duplicate-finding software can be told to only look a
one directory.) The number of comparisons required goes as something
like the square of the number of images to be compared, so comparing 2x
images will take twice as long as comparing two lots of x images, though
of course won't pick up dupes that are across the divide.
J
jbm
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
Regardless of whether it actually is too many, unless you really are
completely unsure of which ones might be duplicates, it is going to be
worth dividing them - even if only into two groups - if you can. (I
presume most image-duplicate-finding software can be told to only look a
one directory.) The number of comparisons required goes as something
like the square of the number of images to be compared, so comparing 2x
images will take twice as long as comparing two lots of x images, though
of course won't pick up dupes that are across the divide.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I like Duplicate Cleaner. It can check multiple directories, not
necessarily in the same tree or even on the same drive. Very versatile.
jim
Regardless of whether it actually is too many, unless you really are
completely unsure of which ones might be duplicates, it is going to be
worth dividing them - even if only into two groups - if you can. (I
presume most image-duplicate-finding software can be told to only look a
one directory.) The number of comparisons required goes as something
like the square of the number of images to be compared, so comparing 2x
images will take twice as long as comparing two lots of x images, though
of course won't pick up dupes that are across the divide.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I like Duplicate Cleaner. It can check multiple directories, not
necessarily in the same tree or even on the same drive. Very versatile.
jim
J
J. P. Gilliver (John)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
Regardless of whether it actually is too many, unless you really are
completely unsure of which ones might be duplicates, it is going to be
worth dividing them - even if only into two groups - if you can. (I
presume most image-duplicate-finding software can be told to only look
a
one directory.) The number of comparisons required goes as something
like the square of the number of images to be compared, so comparing 2x
images will take twice as long as comparing two lots of x images,
though
of course won't pick up dupes that are across the divide.
--
"-- " on a line by itself is a "signature separator"; you shouldn't put
anything below it but your signature.
You've missed my point. Most, I think, comparison utilities can look in--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's why I like Duplicate Cleaner. It can check multiple directories, not necessarily in the same tree or even on the same drive. Very
versatile.
jim
multiple directories; the point I was making was that if you _can_
divide your files (it was images we were talking about initially) into
two groups which you are fairly certain do _not_ share duplicates across
the divide, and then just run the duplicate checker on each half
separately, the comparison run will be much quicker (whatever the actual
program), because there will be fewer comparisons to do.
Y
Yousuf Khan
(I've read the subsequent posts where Yousuf said it was 9000+ and
someone said yes, that is too many.)
Regardless of whether it actually is too many, unless you really are
completely unsure of which ones might be duplicates, it is going to be
worth dividing them - even if only into two groups - if you can. (I
presume most image-duplicate-finding software can be told to only look a
one directory.) The number of comparisons required goes as something
like the square of the number of images to be compared, so comparing 2x
images will take twice as long as comparing two lots of x images, though
of course won't pick up dupes that are across the divide.
Well, the program suggested earlier, DupDetector, is actually perfect
for finding image duplicates, even if they've been cropped or resized,
or re-encoded. Since JPG is a lossy image format, there are many ways to
encode the same picture and still have it look the same, but be quite
different binarily.
However, this program, ImageSorter, seems like it would be a great
program for simply locating similar images, located is disparate
locations. For example, if you wanted to find all pictures where you
yourself appear, I'd say something like this might be useful. That is,
it would've been useful if it didn't crash.
Yousuf Khan
P
Peter Jason
Well, the program suggested earlier, DupDetector, is actually perfect
for finding image duplicates, even if they've been cropped or resized,
or re-encoded. Since JPG is a lossy image format, there are many ways to
encode the same picture and still have it look the same, but be quite
different binarily.
However, this program, ImageSorter, seems like it would be a great
program for simply locating similar images, located is disparate
locations. For example, if you wanted to find all pictures where you
yourself appear, I'd say something like this might be useful. That is,
it would've been useful if it didn't crash.
Yousuf Khan
I use ImageSorter 4.2 beta. Also, I have plenty of RAM (12gb).
Y
Yousuf Khan
I use ImageSorter 4.2 beta. Also, I have plenty of RAM (12gb).
Version I downloaded was Imagesorter 4.3 beta. I got 8GB of RAM, and the
RAM was no where near full when it crashed. I think Imagersorter is
32-bit, so it can't fill up the ram anyways.
Yousuf Khan
P
Peter Jason
Version I downloaded was Imagesorter 4.3 beta. I got 8GB of RAM, and the
RAM was no where near full when it crashed. I think Imagersorter is
32-bit, so it can't fill up the ram anyways.
Yousuf Khan
What is the typical size of your images? Mine are typically 50 -
500KB.
Peter
Y
Yousuf Khan
What is the typical size of your images? Mine are typically 50 -
500KB.
I don't know, but that sounds about right for me too.
Yousuf Khan