On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:28:20 +0000, eax@less.than wrote,
>On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:20:24 +0300, Servic <servic02@mt2009.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Servic, csv you posted is the part of big bourne's csv for all
>>>LS-Magazine issues. I have all the files which match your csv, but I
>>>need more time to compare n@@dles' and bourne's csv for lsm09 in order
>>>to say which of them is correct.
>>EAX, I made selective comparison my lsm09 with bourne's
>>LS-Magazine.csv. Really lsm09 what I have is identical to bourne's
>>csv. So far as I know only 1 LS-Magazine site was in existence. Whose
>>csv is correct?
>
>I have finished comparison. lsm09 differs from the other lsm issues.
>It has 590 images which are similar to the images in the other lsm
>issues (the images have SOF0 marker - Baseline DCT) and 298 images
>which are not similar (the images have SOF2 marker - Progressive DCT).
>Almost all images which are of size 1440x960 have SOF0 marker (except
>3 images) and almost all images which are of size 960x1440 have SOF2
>marker (except 3 images). I don't know for sure whether progressive
>images had been issued by LS or they had been retouched later by
>someone else, but I think the first case takes place. For example, all
>the images in Little-Virgins series are progressive too.
>
>So, which csv is correct for lsm09? The answer is n@@dles'. Probably
>someone used a program to strip metadata from jpeg files. If we remove
>APP12 (Ducky) and APP14 (Adobe) segments from all lsm09 images
>matching n@@dles' csv we got images matching bourne's csv. Exactly and
>with no exceptions. All the images in the other lsm issues have Ducky
>and Adobe segments.
This is absolutely correct. I used those stripped files to recreate 2 of
the long missing lsm09 pics. This only worked for the two that were
baseline jpegs. It was a trivial matter to return the missing headers
and get a match with n@@dles csv.
The final two were progressive which meant the stripped out headers were
unique to each image. N@@dles supplied those last two. It would have
been impossible to put such unique headers back in.
--
mr.bill
|
|