On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:18:07 +0000, eax@less.than wrote,
>I have (at least) two questions about creating csvs and would see
>opinions of the others:
>
>1) To include or not to include thumbnails for missing or corrupt
>pictures in csv?
>
This is a personal thing I think. I don't include thumbnails for
corrupt images since many times the thumb doesn't get posted with a
nearly complete image, and it drives folks crazy to have a missing file
in their csv. I do include them for missing images, if available, as
proof that a particular image wasn't inadvertently overlooked. I
know of only one instance in LS where this was the case.
Most will understand that a missing thumb is not the end of the world,
so go ahead and include them if you want. There is precedence for both.
>2) To repair or not to repair some JPEG headers?
>
>When I created a csv for My-Little-Lolita, I found that three pictures
>had a junk at the end of COM segment and thus they didn't pass my
>checks. Then I removed that junk (replaced 2-3 bytes with zeroes) and
>the files became identical to the other files and passed my checks.
>
>Now I have the same situation with Virgin-Pussy-World. There are four
>JPEG files having a junk at the end of COM segment. All the other
>files had zeroes at the end of that segment. Should I repair such
>files or keep them untouched? The changes don't touch an image at all,
>only metadata are changed.
>
>I think that a junk in COM segments is a result of some bug in image
>creating program.
This doesn't seem to be an issue where two versions of an image exist
and the problem is deciding which is the correct one. Therefore, some
other questions to ask might be:
What were the headers like on the website?
Which version of the image would you want given to you if you were
making a csv from scratch? An original or a modified?
What might happen if after changing headers, an original csv surfaces
from an old-timer who ripped the site personally in 2002?
As we both know, many LS files exist which have untouched images, but
fail csv because of header removal. Proprietary, but otherwise useless
bytes in jpg headers are almost standard anymore.
Perhaps a comment in the csv pointing out the presence or removal of
junk bytes might work.
Changing a csv does not change the files in circulation. It serves as a
measuring stick against which the veracity of a collection can be
determined.
My .02 Euros.
--
mr.bill
|
|