You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have a huge library of files taken out with different softwares from a broken hard disk, I managed to salvage most of my photo library, but I discovered I have many corrupt copies of many files, they are exactly the same as my not corrupted versions for the first few lines and then they get cut or they start huge glitches.
The thing is that most photo duplicates removal softwares are actually using image hashing algorithms, and while they work wonderfully comparing "edited" images they don't work at all comparing corrupted files.
I don't know if that would be possible but I was wondering if there's any chance to add some sort of "pixel stream" comparison, like looking at differences not in a "perceptual hash" but treating pixels as some sort of string declaring color values starting from the top-left corner.
Thanks in advance :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have a huge library of files taken out with different softwares from a broken hard disk, I managed to salvage most of my photo library, but I discovered I have many corrupt copies of many files, they are exactly the same as my not corrupted versions for the first few lines and then they get cut or they start huge glitches.
The thing is that most photo duplicates removal softwares are actually using image hashing algorithms, and while they work wonderfully comparing "edited" images they don't work at all comparing corrupted files.
I don't know if that would be possible but I was wondering if there's any chance to add some sort of "pixel stream" comparison, like looking at differences not in a "perceptual hash" but treating pixels as some sort of string declaring color values starting from the top-left corner.
Thanks in advance :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: