Yes. Can you post a rare in return?

best i can do

209 WUT!

>>2
awww fudge.... Op was that one chick with that wack cracky tumblr lying about havin rarez huh?

:( I dun goofed

guys i need your help
what you are looking at are pixels from a cracky image, but 2 different encodings. One has a bigger file size, a name, a higher "resolution" setting (whatever that is, at 72x72), and ever so slightly higher entropy, but the other has an earlier date, embedded profiles that look more like other pics taken straight from a bucket, resolution of 28x28, and other files in this series have a slightly higher entropy compared to their named counterparts.

Is the bottom or the top one the original?

>>6
obviously upload said images. nobody memorised the pixel layout

>>7
What? the images look exactly the same when not zoomed in to see individual pixels.

>>6

More distinguished colors/higher entropy likely means it's the original. I roughly did the same comparison a few times when I uploaded the cracky collection to mega that's linked here. Though I really didn't worry about it much since at normal levels, you can't really tell.

But as I often say here, those that recompress what's considered digital art should be hung by their genitals.

>>9
which one has the more distinguished colors to you?

>>10 Why not just upload the pictures ?

>>10

Actually, I'm partially wrong according to this: https://github.com/fake-name/ImProcessing-Scratchpad/tree/master/entropyCode

Seems pretty difficult to come up with a means to differentiate. In the end, it'll all be lost to entropy anyway.

did some more comparing today, I have revealed another stunning, scandalous revelation. There's some nasty shit going on. The gifs are a lie. Someone has been spreading shitty gifs on purpose, and been doing this convincingly that people think cracky saved her pics in gif. But this is false.
Take for example this pic, filename 1182177700813.gif date 2007-6-18

>>13
now for reference, someone tried to make a jpg out of this. Notice the artifacts resembling the gif lines

>>13

I suspected this but I don't recall ever seeing those in other formats.

>>14
but there's also this. Superior quality to the gif. But the eyes are most likely shopped, it's called browneyes.jpg after all.
Anyone seen the original JPG?

I've seen better quality jpgs of enough gifs to conclude that someone converted them all

>>16

Thanks for that one, haven't saw it before. Don't forget Cracky edited some herself.

>>13

The presence of gifs always confused me as well.

Also, there are apparently different versions of the gif. This is what I have, and looks slightly less jagged and less illuminated than what you posted.

>>16
:|

>>19
wait, no. I think the eyes look better here.

>>20 All of them have different eyes. Maybe she did it ?

>>20
>>19
what are these,did you shop them yourself?