"mr.bill" <mrbill@invalid.lss> wrote in
news:O_Odna-5_uhj1PDUnZ2dnUVZ8omdnZ2d@gonamic.de:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:26:53 -0600, n@@dles wrote:
>
>>Cheers got them along with your csvs for 21 and 26 which ill use to
>>check. I assume these are good??
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>>I could only find a csv by Baldrick for 29. Do
>>you know if this is good or can you post yours?? Thanks.
>
> Baldrick's csv was considered for possible inclusion into the LS-Land
> bible but failed at two points. His copy of lh2-024-100 is corrupt
> plus he included someone else's custom indices.
>
> I'll post my copy for you, and having stated openly that Baldrick's
> csv lists a corrupt file, I should also post a clean copy for anyone
> in need.
>
> It would appear Baldrick, bourne, & I all listed the same errant file,
> lh2 -021-100. I'm removing it from my csv. It has no earmarks
> commending it for inclusion as an authentic LS image. Likely, someone
> early on took advantage of an existing gap to fit a custom resave
> into, or it may have been accidental. Perhaps someone had to rename
> files that had gotten truncated on an 8.3 16-bit copy of windows and
> someone's 99a became 100. But however it happened, it proliferated
> from there.
Apologies I messed up here :( I have your csvs for 21 and 29 and baldricks
for 26.
Cheers for the info on 29 tho. Im saving all this to a text file so i can
check all the sites at the w/e when i have more time.
Got the lsland vid as well :) cheers for that.
>
>>I suppose it is also one of the biggest sites which doesnt help :)
>>Yeh let me know about the 2 images. Bit of a weird one :)
>>
>
> The site obviously changed between yours and CD's rips. Not only were
> the two images affected, but in one case, the corresponding thumbnail
> is of a different size. I've seen thumbnails change in the past for
> entire sites, even though they are the same image, like they were
> recompressed, but this is the first time I've seen two rips need a
> thumbnail which turned out to be different.
>
> I'm in a quandry here, so if we go with CD on the image, then I'm
> going to go along with his copy of the thumbnail too. Although I've
> chosen not to index thumbs in my csvs, I do include them in my folders
> alongside the corrupt images.
>
> If you would, please look the two ga- files over, compare them with
> yours, and let me know what you think.
>
I looked at both copies and as you say the headers match for the images.
The CD versions of the images although less corrupt have filesizes
considerably less than the average for the set. i.e ga-196-50 is 151k and
no other image in that set is below 171k with the majority being 200k+.
The version i have of that image is 249k which fits more with the images
sizes.
It leads me to believe that someone has attempted to fix the corruption
which has reduced the image size.
This is really subjective tho and since both versions of the images are
essentially bad because of the corruption i would say it is up to the
individual.
I did notice that the CD version of the thumbnail doesnt have a matching
header tho.
Personally I am inclined to go with the versions i already have because of
the above but also in these sort of situations I know that it was my own
rip that these came from whereas the CD versions are from an unknown source
:)
What do you think??
Regards
n@@dles
|
|