Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Well, go to 'File -> Open', at the bottom it will say 'Select File Type', click and choose 'Raw image data', then a screen will come up. At first the preview will be messy, this is because raw doesn't have a header and you don't know the dimensions. Change the width until you get an image, then change the height to a value such that there is nothing cut off, in this case 320 x 200. That's it, now click open.
According to the OP, the images were corrupt on the flash card from the outset. Then they were copied to CD (before the lawsuit). After reviewing all of this, I would now put the odds of recovery at less than 1%.
1) Because they came with other jpegs and have the .jpg extension, no camera would add that if it were some other type.
2) Run 'ent' on them, then on other jpegs, the output is very similar. Run it on .raw or other types of files and the output is different. Admittedly, it could also be png, but then why would have a .jpg ending ?
1) Because they came with other jpegs and have the .jpg extension, no camera would add that if it were some other type.
I agree---the only reason for doubt is the circumstances. They were all from one SD card which was "corrupted". The photographer was new to the camera.
Quote:
2) Run 'ent' on them, then on other jpegs, the output is very similar. Run it on .raw or other types of files and the output is different. Admittedly, it could also be png, but then why would have a .jpg ending ?
What is "ent"? Pacman does not find this---nor does Google.....
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
