Question on "Detect Versions"

Post Reply
david mantripp
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Feb 15 15:13

Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by david mantripp » 18 Feb 15 15:27

Hi,

I've been evaluating PhotoSupreme for a couple of days, as a potential replacement for both the DAM side of Aperture and MediaPro. One killer feature for me in PhotoSupreme is Versions, but I'm having trouble getting it working consistently. For example, I have a PSD and a Raw version of a file, with the same file name. If I select either and use the "find similar" function, PhotoSupreme finds the matching file. But Detect Versions doesn't. I've even tried selecting either, or both, in the Find Similar results and applying Detect Versions, but nothing happens. This seems to affect about 50% of cases. Others are fine (although it seems not to recognise .ORF files as Raw, while .DNG are fine)

Here is an example of two images where Detect Versions does not work
Image

Here is the info pane for each:
Image

Image

Any idea what I'm doing wrong ?

Best wishes
David Mantripp

Mike Buckley
Posts: 1194
Joined: 10 Jul 08 14:18

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by Mike Buckley » 18 Feb 15 20:00

I don't use Version Detection but I believe it works only when the version being found is in the same folder as the "original" or in a subfolder of that folder. Your screenshots don't display the entire file paths but they seem not to meet that requirement.

david mantripp
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Feb 15 15:13

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by david mantripp » 18 Feb 15 23:04

Ah. Ok, thanks for the info, that would explain it - they're on different volumes. However, the selling point of a catalog-based DAM (which I believe is quoted in Photo Supreme marketing) is independence from the filing system. And since I can manually create Versions even in such a case, it seems that it shouldn't be a huge issue to automate.

vlad
Posts: 895
Joined: 01 Sep 08 15:20

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by vlad » 19 Feb 15 11:36

david mantripp wrote:However, the selling point of a catalog-based DAM (which I believe is quoted in Photo Supreme marketing) is independence from the filing system.
I agree.
And since I can manually create Versions even in such a case, it seems that it shouldn't be a huge issue to automate.
What may - or may not - be a huge issue is to automate (across the entire folder base stored in the catalog) while keeping the performance acceptable. (As a user, it's easy to complain about the lack of a feature - and then complain about slowdowns once that additional capability gets implemented.) Perhaps a setting instructing Photo Supreme to detect versions only within the current folder tree vs. across all parallel folder trees vs. across the entire folder base might fulfill the needs of all users, while rewarding with better performance those users who follow certain conventions.

jstartin
Posts: 408
Joined: 23 Aug 06 13:47
Location: UK

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by jstartin » 19 Feb 15 17:08

I think it should be remembered that:

If version detection is run on a "master" file with all of its derivatives in sub-folders where they can be detected, then they can subsequently be moved to another location without breaking the version sets. It is the detection that needs a compliant disposition of files and not subsequent maintenance and use of version sets.

The early (2012) implementation of version detection did search through all files recorded in the catalog rather that limiting the search to a particular set of folders. I recall that this led one user into massive difficulties when many files that were unrelated were, because of a few aberrant file names, placed together in version sets and their labelling was consequently merged. It was soon after this that Hert changed the scope of the search. I think he thought that this was a better solution for the "typical" target user. Hert is always resistant to introducing too many options and preference settings, but personally I think that there is a strong case for allowing a choice between "containing folder and all sub-folders" (default) and "whole catalog" for the search path.
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; internal AMD Radeon™ HD7560D; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)

david mantripp
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Feb 15 15:13

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by david mantripp » 20 Feb 15 20:20

Well, I understand the issue, but good DAM practice should include adopting and sticking to a coherent naming scheme. If that one user's naming scheme is so screwed up, then probably it's going to take more than removing a key selling point feature from Photo Supreme to fix. Seems a bit of an over-reaction too!

DirkS
moderator
Posts: 284
Joined: 25 May 08 14:28
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by DirkS » 20 Feb 15 21:15

david mantripp wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction too!
Over-reaction from whom on what?
Problems searching the forum? Try Google Site Search by adding 'site:forum.idimager.com' to a standard Google search.

david mantripp
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Feb 15 15:13

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by david mantripp » 03 Mar 15 20:53

jstartin's reply hints that Hert removed this feature because 1 user had problems with it, perhaps because this seemed to be representative of a "typical user". That seems a bit of an over-reaction to me.

jstartin
Posts: 408
Joined: 23 Aug 06 13:47
Location: UK

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by jstartin » 04 Mar 15 9:40

david mantripp wrote:jstartin's reply hints that Hert removed this feature because 1 user had problems with it, perhaps because this seemed to be representative of a "typical user". That seems a bit of an over-reaction to me.
Hinting at this was not intentional; the version detection feature was in a state of flux at the time. It does seem to imply that it would be simple for Hert to go back to seaching the whole catalog if he wanted to. You could try and persuade him with a request in Mantis :wink:
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; internal AMD Radeon™ HD7560D; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)

david mantripp
Posts: 21
Joined: 18 Feb 15 15:13

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by david mantripp » 05 Mar 15 12:29

What would be even nicer would be top be able to select volumes which should be in search scope. But I don't think I'm quite up to speed yet with the application to start making feature requests. And it would probably be polite to buy a license first, too :-)

vlad
Posts: 895
Joined: 01 Sep 08 15:20

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by vlad » 06 Mar 15 10:31

This raises the question whether there should be any functional difference in search scopes between version detection vs. duplicate detection vs. similarity detection. After all, similar images could be configured as different versions of the same image - so, if similar images are detected across the entire catalog, why couldn't/shouldn't the version detection work the same? OTOH, it is true that the catalog may contain images with identical or similar names that are not necessary content-based versions - I don't even know if that's a fringe case or quite common; therefore, allowing the user to set the search scope/rule seems fairly sensible to me.

jstartin
Posts: 408
Joined: 23 Aug 06 13:47
Location: UK

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by jstartin » 06 Mar 15 13:25

vlad wrote:This raises the question whether there should be any functional difference in search scopes between version detection vs. duplicate detection vs. similarity detection. After all, similar images could be configured as different versions of the same image - so, if similar images are detected across the entire catalog, why couldn't/shouldn't the version detection work the same? OTOH, it is true that the catalog may contain images with identical or similar names that are not necessary content-based versions - I don't even know if that's a fringe case or quite common; therefore, allowing the user to set the search scope/rule seems fairly sensible to me.
I think that the different mechanism used for version detection might possibly dictate a more cautious approach to the search scope. As I understand it duplicate detection is based on the "hash" signature for the whole file, and similarity is based on some magic formula of Hert's which considers the content of the entire image. Version detection is wholly based on file name matching. I know it is bad practice (and asking for trouble) but consider a new user with an existing collection of images that are stored on disk in a way that relies on the path to differentiate images. In the extreme case ...\2014\01.jpg, ...\2015\02.jpg etc and ...\2015\01.jpg. That is, each unique file has a unique path but there are duplications of file name. For anyone used to using the file system to keep things organised this could seem entirely sensible and satisfactory. Import the images into PSU and apply automatic version detection across the whole catalog and the result will be complete chaos.
Jim (Photo Supreme: AMD Quad-Core A8-5500 Accelerated Processor 3.2 GHz; internal AMD Radeon™ HD7560D; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM; Win10x64)

vlad
Posts: 895
Joined: 01 Sep 08 15:20

Re: Question on "Detect Versions"

Post by vlad » 07 Mar 15 0:33

jstartin wrote:For anyone used to using the file system to keep things organised this could seem entirely sensible and satisfactory. Import the images into PSU and apply automatic version detection across the whole catalog and the result will be complete chaos.
I completely agree - that's why I suggested giving us control over the search scope.

Post Reply