One second discrepancy?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Terry Pinnell, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. 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
     
    Terry Pinnell, Oct 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Terry Pinnell
    <> 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
     
    David Littlewood, Oct 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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? ;^)
     
    Bob Harrington, Oct 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Terry Pinnell

    David Harmon Guest

    On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
    Pinnell <> 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.
     
    David Harmon, Oct 7, 2005
    #4
  5. David Harmon <> wrote:
    : On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
    : Pinnell <> 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
     
    Randy Berbaum, Oct 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Randy Berbaum <> wrote:

    >David Harmon <> wrote:
    >: On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:20:29 +0100 in rec.photo.digital, Terry
    >: Pinnell <> 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
     
    Terry Pinnell, Oct 7, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Garry Glendown
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    516
  2. Alasdair Baxter

    MP3 -- Why the discrepancy?

    Alasdair Baxter, Nov 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    505
    gangle
    Nov 15, 2004
  3. Doc

    Aftermarket Li-ion battery voltage discrepancy

    Doc, Jan 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    383
    Harvey
    Jan 25, 2004
  4. Jonathan Berry

    Exifer and Irfanview IPTC discrepancy

    Jonathan Berry, May 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,378
    Angus C
    May 8, 2004
  5. Charles Kerekes

    Exam 70-123: Is the "discrepancy report" the final product of SAM?

    Charles Kerekes, Aug 4, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    578
    Charles Kerekes
    Aug 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page