15 replies to this topic

[Frederick Level]

I've been using Recuva for quite some times and finally discovered that it does a poor job recovering deleted image files from a SD card.

I ran a test on a SD card that was formatted and new files stored on it.

Recuva recovers some files only, even with a deep scan activated
In comparison, Stellar Phoenix Photo Recovery is excellent and recovered 100's

Why such a difference regarding photos?
What is so special about this type of files?

[Super Fast]

I have used Handy Recovery before, but I will test Stellar Phoenix later to see what the results are.

Thank you for posting your results. Anyone else have a similar experience?

[hazelnut]

Please bear in mind that this area of the forum is for discussing Recuva.

[Super Fast]

hazelnut, on 02 September 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Please bear in mind that this area of the forum is for discussing Recuva.

I agree. The only reason the above is mentioned, is it is impossible to test the effectiveness of one, without having another to compare it with.

I haven't had time to test the program listed above, so I intend to run side by side tests of both programs on a flash drive with deleted files/photos to test which is the more effective. NOT to diss Recuva, but as a method & means of comparing recovery results, & to test the effectiveness of each.

If the above listed program is found more capable, this would mean that something about the algorithm or recovery methodology is in need of alteration.
While I do agree that this is about Recuva, the question I have is, how would one be able to find ways to improve it without comparison to others?

[hazelnut]

Super Fast we are not going to have discussions about ''Recuva verses others'' in this part of the forum okay?

[Super Fast]

hazelnut, on 02 September 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Super Fast we are not going to have discussions about ''Recuva verses others'' in this part of the forum okay?

That's fine. If that's indeed, what you want. Observations & software testing will have to be privily made, I suppose, in order that improvements be made?

[Nergal]

@everybody hazelnut is not making a rule up this is a long standing forum guideline.  On top of that her first post was in  regards to starting any sort of comparison.

That said it is definitely a fact that specialized photo recovery will be better at photo recovery because they can be programmed with more heuristics to identify the garbled  code that is a deleted file; it is also able to insert the logical code snippets in the case of missing ones

Real world analogy: It is easier to a fluent Russian speaker to reconstruct shredded KGB files than it is for me, a non-Russian speaker/reader, to do the same task.

[Super Fast]

Hmmmm.... Wouldn't it be nice if recuva could be specialized in photos/documents/video recovery, and then have generalized built around it?

[Andavari]

Nergal, on 02 September 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

specialized photo recovery will be better at photo recovery because they can be programmed with more heuristics to identify the garbled  code that is a deleted file; it is also able to insert the logical code snippets in the case of missing ones

That's a good point. If Recuva was to write proper file headers/code, etc., then people would have something entirely different to complain about since Recuva would have to go commercial/shareware because it would cost Piriform to license the ability to for instance write valid JPEG, GIF, etc., headers into files - which is often the sole reason why commercial photo recovery software is often expensive.

[Super Fast]

How sad... Guess there is only so much one can do. One can hope, however?

[Andavari]

I dunno, maybe they could license some commercial DLLs or something so it could finally recover photos because there have been many people posting about not being able to recover their photos. Luckily whenever I've tried to recover any they've only been on my second hard disk that had nothing written to it after an accidental deletiion, and no defrag done, etc., so I've been able to recover them 100%.

It's probably a little more tricky anyways getting them off of flash-based media like USB Thumb Drives.

[DennisD]

One of the biggest issues I think is the recovery of "Raw Image" data, which seems to be the format of choice for most camera manufacturers these days, and sometimes the choice of the user over the option to save in the jpg format.

The problems for a recovery seem to be the variety of raw image types ...

Quote

No two manufacturers encode their raw files in the same way. Indeed many camera makers change their raw format between camera models. (We can only hope that one day the industry well agree upon a common format). Every manufacturer provides software for decoding and processing their camera's raw files. In most cases this software is free and provided with the camera purchase. In other cases this is an extra cost program to be purchased separately.

Understanding Raw Files:

The original poster doesn't mention the make of camera, which may be significant to his issue.

Recuva can scan for Cannon Raw format image files (.CRW format), but they are the only ones mentioned in the Recuva guide.

http://www.piriform....can-and-cant-do

[Super Fast]

DennisD, on 03 September 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

One of the biggest issues I think is the recovery of "Raw Image" data,

I'd just be happy if they can include "RAW" HDD recovery...

To reproduce:

1) Install XP (No Service Packs)
2) Copy files to an external drive until it is well beyond the 137 GB limit.
3) Try browsing, and/or viewing files as well as using Safe Eject & then reconnecting.

The drive should appear as "RAW" at some point. Trouble is, this may be a fake RAW as installing a SP will probably enable it to see the content.
When HDD truly go RAW, I usually have to use 3rd party to scan for & recover "lost" partitions...

I am always hoping that Recuva will one day include this... Scan for lost partitions. I check every several versions for it. It is the one thing I have trouble with most, because I work with lots of HDD drives. And you can't recover files if Recuva don't see them.

I think Recuva is very good, & I wish it had this so I can just "break the chains" as it were, and go 100% Recuva...

[Augeas]

Whilst the OP doesn't specifically ask for help, I seem to remember that removing the card from the camera and putting it into a card reader attached to the pc might help.

I think that Recuva is very much a hard drive application. I've just plugged my old and much used camera in to the pc (don't have an integrated card reader) and Recuva shows no files found on both a normal and deep scan. Maybe the card (XD) is very clever at garbage collection, but I doubt it.

I think that a dedicated photo recovery application is expecting to read files in some picture format, and so can make some assumptions if data is missing or corrupt. Recuva is a generalised recovery application and has to cope with what could be any recognised file format, so has to be more circumspect in what assumptions it makes.

[Keatah]

Regarding Recuva vs. Others, well, it's really quite simple.. each program will have various strengths and weaknesses. Some will excel in certain situations where others don't. It all depends on the damage and how it was done. It is up to the data recovery professional to decide what to use and when. When it comes to recovery operations there's no one-size-fits-all tool.

Recuva is my general go-to application for undeletes and recovery of files in general when not much damage has happened to the disk structure and file system. I have no problem and I don't get all huffy when Recuva (or any other program) doesn't seem to work right. You analyze the situation, learn about what happened and what is happening, and then try another program more suited for the task at hand.

This little article will touch on some of the difficulties involved with recovering pictures.
http://en.wikipedia..../Photo_recovery

[DennisD]

That's a good read Keatah.