Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > One second discrepancy?

Reply
Thread Tools

One second discrepancy?

 
 
Terry Pinnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2005
Although not exactly keeping me away at night, I'm puzzled by a tiny
difference in the data for a batch of recent photos. Here's an
example:

Filename, created using Bulk Rename Utility, specifying 'Time Taken':
J:\My Pictures\PHOTOS\Arabba 2005\Edit1\20050724-080105-Arabba.JPG

From IrfanView EXIF info:
DateTime 2005:07:24 08:01:05
DateTimeOriginal 2005:07:24 08:01:05
DateTimeDigitized 2005:07:24 08:01:05

From IrfanView Image Properties:
File date/time: 24/07/2005 / 08:01:04
(And that is also displayed on status bar)

From Windows Explorer:
Created: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06
Modified: Sun 24 July 2005, 08:01:04
Accessed: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06

Leave aside the issue of Windows Explorer's misleading use of the
label 'Created'. But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
photo was taken? I'm guessing that EXIF records decimals of a second
and that this is just some sort of rounding consequence?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Terry Pinnell
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Although not exactly keeping me away at night, I'm puzzled by a tiny
>difference in the data for a batch of recent photos. Here's an
>example:
>
>Filename, created using Bulk Rename Utility, specifying 'Time Taken':
>J:\My Pictures\PHOTOS\Arabba 2005\Edit1\20050724-080105-Arabba.JPG
>
>From IrfanView EXIF info:
>DateTime 2005:07:24 08:01:05
>DateTimeOriginal 2005:07:24 08:01:05
>DateTimeDigitized 2005:07:24 08:01:05
>
>From IrfanView Image Properties:
>File date/time: 24/07/2005 / 08:01:04
>(And that is also displayed on status bar)
>
>From Windows Explorer:
>Created: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06
>Modified: Sun 24 July 2005, 08:01:04
>Accessed: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06
>
>Leave aside the issue of Windows Explorer's misleading use of the
>label 'Created'. But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
>photo was taken? I'm guessing that EXIF records decimals of a second
>and that this is just some sort of rounding consequence?
>

Well, I'm no expert on computer internal processes, so this is a guess.
I think it is likely that each program keeps a separate record of
date/time parameters in a different place. Since (one imagines) these
records would not be written on the same clock cycle, it is quite
possible that the time rolled over between the two events.

Or I could just be guessing wrong.

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bob Harrington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2005
Terry Pinnell wrote:
> Although not exactly keeping me away at night, I'm puzzled by a tiny
> difference in the data for a batch of recent photos. Here's an
> example:
>
> Filename, created using Bulk Rename Utility, specifying 'Time Taken':
> J:\My Pictures\PHOTOS\Arabba 2005\Edit1\20050724-080105-Arabba.JPG
>
> From IrfanView EXIF info:
> DateTime 2005:07:24 08:01:05
> DateTimeOriginal 2005:07:24 08:01:05
> DateTimeDigitized 2005:07:24 08:01:05
>
> From IrfanView Image Properties:
> File date/time: 24/07/2005 / 08:01:04
> (And that is also displayed on status bar)
>
> From Windows Explorer:
> Created: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06
> Modified: Sun 24 July 2005, 08:01:04
> Accessed: Sun 2 October 2005, 16:53:06
>
> Leave aside the issue of Windows Explorer's misleading use of the
> label 'Created'. But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
> photo was taken? I'm guessing that EXIF records decimals of a second
> and that this is just some sort of rounding consequence?


Daylight Wasting Time? ;^)


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Harmon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2005
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
Pinnell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote,
> But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
>photo was taken?


On a "fat" filesystem the time stamp resolution is two seconds and
the time will be rounded to an even number.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2005
David Harmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
: Pinnell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote,
: > But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
: >photo was taken?

: On a "fat" filesystem the time stamp resolution is two seconds and
: the time will be rounded to an even number.

And that may explain some of the differences in time stamp reporting that
was the original question. The time stamp may be stored in the computer
time code in some places and in the rounded form in others. In addition
some programs that report the time stamp to the user may round
differently. One may round up and another may truncate. So a difference in
reporting time of one second is not something to worry about. Now if the
time recorded is off by some large or unusual number digits there could be
some problem with the clock. Of course if several time stamp reports
differ by multiples of an hour it may reflect a time zone setting. I know
my camera has both a "home" and "vacation" time setting that could effect
the time stamp reported by various programs.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
Terry Pinnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2005
Randy Berbaum <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>David Harmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
>: Pinnell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote,
>: > But why is Modified ever 1 second *before* the time a
>: >photo was taken?
>
>: On a "fat" filesystem the time stamp resolution is two seconds and
>: the time will be rounded to an even number.
>
>And that may explain some of the differences in time stamp reporting that
>was the original question. The time stamp may be stored in the computer
>time code in some places and in the rounded form in others. In addition
>some programs that report the time stamp to the user may round
>differently. One may round up and another may truncate. So a difference in
>reporting time of one second is not something to worry about. Now if the
>time recorded is off by some large or unusual number digits there could be
>some problem with the clock. Of course if several time stamp reports
>differ by multiples of an hour it may reflect a time zone setting. I know
>my camera has both a "home" and "vacation" time setting that could effect
>the time stamp reported by various programs.


Thanks for those helpful follow-ups.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
strip all but second second line from bottom and then strip that!!!! yelipolok Perl Misc 4 01-27-2010 08:14 AM
May output the char one after one every other second? liking C lang. C Programming 16 02-17-2007 12:47 AM
How to change data displayed in one GridView depending on selection made in the second one? (ASP.NET 2.0) misiek ASP .Net 7 02-28-2006 09:40 AM
CSS aligning two things on one line with one left and one right news.frontiernet.net HTML 6 04-16-2004 02:44 AM
Using One XSLT and multiple XML Problem (One is XML and another one is XBRL) loveNUNO XML 2 11-20-2003 06:47 AM



Advertisments