Slick <Slick@Slick.com> wrote:
>Piper <here@there.com> wrote in news:part1of1.1.UI27tvP7hmYogQ@ue.ph:
>
>> Hi Magnum,
>>
>> Thanks to Fred's post we are getting a fairly complete set of Lola.
>> The problem is to decide which files are likely to be the originals..
>> if you care. :-)
>>
>> I have always decided in favor of the larger of a pair of dupes.
>>
>> To test the files that Fred posted versus the files that I had before
>> I did the following:
>> 1) renamed all files to the current naming convention.. eg.
>> lo99x123.jpg or lop99x123
>> 2) I made CSV files of Fred's 1-99 set and my previous 1-99 set
>> 3) I then loaded both CSV files into a spreadsheet (I use OpenOffice)
>> and compared each file for file size
>>
>> Fred's files win in the first 44 sets then it gets to be a bit of a
>> mess...
>>
>> I am going to make a third set (1-99) of all the largest files and
>> make a CSV of that. I'll post that for you when it's done.
>>
>> Do you want to see my spreadsheet? I can make it an Excel sheet if
>> that's better for you.
>>
>> cheers
>> Piper
>>
>
>If it was me, I would just keep FF's and trash the rest. If his are a
>little smaller, (I could be wrong but) I BELIEVE he has applied lossless
>transformation and stripped away the hidden markers from the files (like
>any smart poster would do). You shouldn't notice any difference, they
>aren't downsized.
Hi Slick,
can you explain this for me... why would you reduce an original file at all? My
background has been in the Playboy collecting groups and there, the original is
sacrosanct :-)
it would sure save a lot of work to just keep Fred's files
thanks.. I'll check out the links that you sent me in the other post
BTW, I'm going to drop back the posts on the SCTracker to once a week.. Mondays
cheers
Piper
|
|