1.01 billion images in 0.632 seconds?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, Feb 14, 2009.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    http://tineye.com/ claims to have searched 1.01 billion images in 0.632
    seconds? to find three or four pics out there that are identical to one
    on my hard disk (yes, I pinched a small Roger Rabbit one ages ago ...).
    Should this be believed?

    Awfully nice idea this site, it was mentioned at uk.net.web.authoring in
    recent thread.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 14, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme

    BootNic Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:17:10 -0500
    Sherm Pendley <> wrote in:
    <>

    > dorayme <> writes:
    >
    >> http://tineye.com/ claims to have searched 1.01 billion images
    >> in 0.632 seconds? to find three or four pics out there that are
    >> identical to one on my hard disk (yes, I pinched a small Roger
    >> Rabbit one ages ago ...). Should this be believed?

    >
    > To find one that's *identical*, down to every single pixel? Yeah,
    > that's believeable. They could calculate a hash value for each
    > image as its being added to their database. When you upload your
    > own image, they'd calculate its hash value. Getting a list of
    > images with the same hash value as yours would then be a simple
    > query on an indexed integer column - very, very fast for modern
    > databases.
    >
    > I can't imagine them doing any more complicated matching in
    > that kind of time though - no face matching, color space
    > conversion, fuzzy matching, none of that sort of thing.


    I have no ideal how it's done, how many images it checked, but it is
    very quick.

    http://tineye.com/search/efec127c48945335a83a88a3f6acf127e2ad7896

    The above example appeared to take longer to upload the image then it
    did to return the results.

    As I think you will see, the matches are not matches, but they are
    similar in part.

    I find it interesting. Very nice find.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkmW9uYACgkQylMUzZO6jeJsRQCeNTX+BWHt0zrb7LjFj8jCYJQM
    ufsAn1RLkvqCXtqnHbSJXFcz1kflhw+Z
    =xVHt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    BootNic, Feb 14, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    BootNic <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:17:10 -0500
    > Sherm Pendley <> wrote in:
    > <>
    >
    > > dorayme <> writes:
    > >
    > >> http://tineye.com/ claims to have searched 1.01 billion images
    > >> in 0.632 seconds? to find three or four pics out there that are
    > >> identical to one on my hard disk (yes, I pinched a small Roger
    > >> Rabbit one ages ago ...). Should this be believed?

    > >
    > > To find one that's *identical*, down to every single pixel? Yeah,
    > > that's believeable. They could calculate a hash value for each
    > > image as its being added to their database. When you upload your
    > > own image, they'd calculate its hash value. Getting a list of
    > > images with the same hash value as yours would then be a simple
    > > query on an indexed integer column - very, very fast for modern
    > > databases.
    > >
    > > I can't imagine them doing any more complicated matching in
    > > that kind of time though - no face matching, color space
    > > conversion, fuzzy matching, none of that sort of thing.

    >
    > I have no ideal how it's done, how many images it checked, but it is
    > very quick.
    >
    > > http://tineye.com/search/efec127c48945335a83a88a3f6acf127e2ad7896 >
    >
    > The above example appeared to take longer to upload the image then it
    > did to return the results.
    >
    > As I think you will see, the matches are not matches, but they are
    > similar in part.
    >


    Yes, I am sure this is right and what Sherm says. I suppose it would not
    have found a closer match (with the girl draped) had it taken more time
    - after all 0.014 seconds is not much time! In which case, one can
    conclude it's fairly unique an image.

    Let me try with with an image I use a lot in html tests (it resizes so
    well!):

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/pics/crimson.png>

    Reply: Image too simple to create unique signature

    Who can argue with that. Let me try a pic I took.

    http://tineye.com/search/e7a856835a9201fd28712b1340512a37e2467c96

    There is a database of their own. If they got all the images on the
    internet right now, I should work out how big their hard disk (imagine
    *one*) have to be! But I will resist. <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 14, 2009
    #3
  4. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In which case, one can
    > conclude it's fairly unique an image.


    er... that was a mistake. Their database might simply be inadequate...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Feb 14, 2009
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tshad
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    17,075
    tshad
    Mar 11, 2005
  2. 00_CP_D12
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    8,981
    dilipv
    Feb 22, 2008
  3. Stu
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,787
    Dave Thompson
    Mar 7, 2005
  4. Michael Tan
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,022
    Ara.T.Howard
    Jul 21, 2005
  5. `p
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    386
    Steve Litt
    Dec 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page