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.
|
|