I'm looking to migrate from Picasa 3 to something supported. The ACDSee software seems to fit best with how I like to work compared to other products I've tried so far. The problem is that I have thousands of photos with face tagging in XMP tags. Is there--or plans for--some way to migrate those into ACDSee? Even with facial recognition it took me a LONG time to tag things in Picasa and don't want to go through that again.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Picasa Face Tag Migration
Collapse
X
-
I'd like to express interest in such a facility as well and I suspect that there are many people like KFStein and me. I also have been using Picasa for many years and have invested countless hours in face tagging. I probably have between 50,000 and 100,000 photographs scanned from old family negatives, slides, prints etc and I have tagged over 2000 different individuals so far. I have looked for a replacement since the announcement that Picasa support was ceasing but have been unable to bring myself to migrate to anything else because I couldn't bear to lose so much work. A facility to migrate the embedded face tags from Picasa to ACDSee would be just what I need to encourage me to jump in that direction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mcosgrove View PostHello KFStein,
A face detection migration path from Picasa and Lightroom to ACDSee is on our road-map. Unfortunately we didn't have time in the 1st ACDSee 2019 release. Will consider it for an update or ACDSee 2020.
Regards,
Mark
It seems that I have to stick to Picasa for another year...
Comment
-
Just wanted to add my voice to this. I'm another Picasa 3 Facial Recognition user with a couple hundred thousand photos with embedded facial information that I would love to import into ACDSee. I've used ACDSee for about 20 years, but always needed Picasa for organizational work due to its facial recognition. It would be nice to do this all in ACDSee - just need the data import capability now!
Comment
-
-
I posted this in another related thread....
I have struggled too to move out of Picasa with 300,000+ images tagged with faces. I am not going to move until I find a descent upgrade path. Because of the lack of interest on the subject, I set out to write my own migration program from Picasa FAce Tags into ACDSee (as I like all the rest of the program). I have hit, however, a question mark in the process. ACDSee Ultimate 2020 writes the face tags as 2 regions in the XMP group. One region is more square shaped around the face and is tagged DLY and the other region is more a vertical rectangel longer on Y and shorter on X around the face and is tagged ALG. Both regions are really close to one another except for a few pixels that give them aslightly different shape.
So my questions are:
1) What would happen if I write the face tags regions as exactly the same shape (with the same coordinates) in both ALG and DLY regions?
2) What is the difference between both regions, and why would you store a single face as 2 distinict regions? I am assuming one region is caused by the face detection, and the other one by the face recognition engines.
Please help, if I can get answers to these questions I can have a program that can do the migration for whole libraries. I am sure all Picasa users will appreciate moving into ACDSee with such a program and preserving their old face region collections. I understand this might not seem like a priority for ACDSee, but I am willing to put in the time in order to finish the program. I just need a little guidance and information.
Please help.Last edited by jdardon; 12-01-2019, 10:42 AM.
- 1 like
Comment
-
I for one would be hugely grateful for such a migration programme.
I am also a Picasa refugee and spent hours tagging faces, marking locations, descriptions and keywords. I am struggling to work out how to bring all that data across to ADCSee. If you were able to bring such data across, I'm convinced that ACDSee would see many more people buy the software.
Picasa took some beating for usability and ACDSee is the closest I see to take up that mantle, However a facility is needed to preserve what work people have done already.
- 1 like
Comment
Comment