Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon Coolpix 4200 Timestamp Irregularities

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 1:32:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This afternoon my wife and son took my Nikon Coolpix 4200 to look at a
used pool table we are thinking of buying. On the way home, my son
took the memory card out of the camera and put it in the card reader
slot on his laptop and copied the photos to the laptop.

When my wife got home, I connected the camera to my laptop with the
USB cable. I noticed that the time stamps on photo files had some
irregularities:

DSCN0037.JPG 01/06/05 12:12
DSCN0038.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
DSCN0039.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
DSCN0040.JPG 01/06/05 12:14
DSCN0041.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?
DSCN0042.JPG 01/06/05 21:54 ==> 21:54? 2 minutes earlier?
DSCN0043.JPG 01/06/05 12:16
DSCN0044.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
DSCN0045.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
DSCN0046.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
DSCN0047.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?

I checked with my wife and the sequence according to the filenames is
correct and they were all shot shortly after noon.

I just checked the camera date & time and it is correct.

Can anyone suggest what might be happening?

Is the camera time unreliable?

I got a new Nikon Coolpix 4200 about 6 months ago. I have used it on
several trips. I have never noticed anything like this before.

Thanks

--
Using a Nikon Coolpix 4200
OS: Win 2K
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04)
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 8:41:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:32:13 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Top Spin
<ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This afternoon my wife and son took my Nikon Coolpix 4200 to look at a
>used pool table we are thinking of buying. On the way home, my son
>took the memory card out of the camera and put it in the card reader
>slot on his laptop and copied the photos to the laptop.
>
>When my wife got home, I connected the camera to my laptop with the
>USB cable. I noticed that the time stamps on photo files had some
>irregularities:
>
>DSCN0037.JPG 01/06/05 12:12
>DSCN0038.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
>DSCN0039.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
>DSCN0040.JPG 01/06/05 12:14
>DSCN0041.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?
>DSCN0042.JPG 01/06/05 21:54 ==> 21:54? 2 minutes earlier?
>DSCN0043.JPG 01/06/05 12:16
>DSCN0044.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>DSCN0045.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>DSCN0046.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>DSCN0047.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?
>
>I checked with my wife and the sequence according to the filenames is
>correct and they were all shot shortly after noon.
>
>I just checked the camera date & time and it is correct.
>
>Can anyone suggest what might be happening?
>
>Is the camera time unreliable?
>
>I got a new Nikon Coolpix 4200 about 6 months ago. I have used it on
>several trips. I have never noticed anything like this before.

Which time stamps are these? File system with camera just mounted on PC
looking at contents of camera, or after transfer? How does this compare to
the internal time stamp in the photo exif info? You might try reformatting
the card in the camera once you've removed all the photos you want.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 9:11:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:41:38 -0500, Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:32:13 -0800, in rec.photo.digital Top Spin
><ToppSpin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This afternoon my wife and son took my Nikon Coolpix 4200 to look at a
>>used pool table we are thinking of buying. On the way home, my son
>>took the memory card out of the camera and put it in the card reader
>>slot on his laptop and copied the photos to the laptop.
>>
>>When my wife got home, I connected the camera to my laptop with the
>>USB cable. I noticed that the time stamps on photo files had some
>>irregularities:
>>
>>DSCN0037.JPG 01/06/05 12:12
>>DSCN0038.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
>>DSCN0039.JPG 01/06/05 12:13
>>DSCN0040.JPG 01/06/05 12:14
>>DSCN0041.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?
>>DSCN0042.JPG 01/06/05 21:54 ==> 21:54? 2 minutes earlier?
>>DSCN0043.JPG 01/06/05 12:16
>>DSCN0044.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>>DSCN0045.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>>DSCN0046.JPG 01/06/05 12:24
>>DSCN0047.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 ==> 21:56?
>>
>>I checked with my wife and the sequence according to the filenames is
>>correct and they were all shot shortly after noon.
>>
>>I just checked the camera date & time and it is correct.
>>
>>Can anyone suggest what might be happening?
>>
>>Is the camera time unreliable?
>>
>>I got a new Nikon Coolpix 4200 about 6 months ago. I have used it on
>>several trips. I have never noticed anything like this before.
>
>Which time stamps are these? File system with camera just mounted on PC
>looking at contents of camera, or after transfer?

Both. Using Windows Explorer, the time stamps are the same whether I
an looking at the image files in the camera (F:\DCIM\100NIKON) or on
my laptop's harddisk (C:\My Pictures\DCIM\100NIKON).

>How does this compare to
>the internal time stamp in the photo exif info?

Here's the list shown above with 2 new columns. The dates are always
1/6/05 so I have only shown the times.

1. The EXIF column shows the timestamp in the EXIF data according to
IrfanView. There are 3 datetime fields in the EXIF data and all are
identical for all of these photos.

2. The Prop column shows the full timestamp (including the seconds)
according to the Windows file properties. The Created and Modified
fields are identical.

Windows Explorer EXIF Prop
DSCN0037.JPG 01/06/05 12:12 12:12:51 12:12:52
DSCN0038.JPG 01/06/05 12:13 12:13:04 12:13:06
DSCN0039.JPG 01/06/05 12:13 12:13:40 12:13:42
DSCN0040.JPG 01/06/05 12:14 12:13:59 12:14:00
DSCN0041.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 12:14:57 21:56:22
DSCN0042.JPG 01/06/05 21:54 12:16:37 21:54:56
DSCN0043.JPG 01/06/05 12:16 12:16:49 12:16:50
DSCN0044.JPG 01/06/05 12:24 12:24:32 12:24:34
DSCN0045.JPG 01/06/05 12:24 12:24:43 12:24:44
DSCN0046.JPG 01/06/05 12:24 12:24:56 12:24:56
DSCN0047.JPG 01/06/05 21:56 12:25:12 21:56:00

This is very interesting. In only 1 case is the EXIF data the same as
the file data. Is that because it takes the camera up to 2 seconds to
write the data to the memory card?

It looks like the EXIF data is reliable, at least for these 11 photos.

Any ideas why the file timestamp is completely wrong for those 3
photos?

>You might try reformatting
>the card in the camera once you've removed all the photos you want.

I usually reformat the card after each upload. I am quite sure it had
been reformatted not long before these photos were taken. It look like
I also did a Reset on the camera because these photos started
numbering at 0037.

There was one other oddity this morning. I went to the date/time
setting in the camera and noticed that it was about a minute slow. I
sat the camera down for a couple of minutes and when I picked it back
up, the camera time had not changed. It was now about 4 minutes slow.
I was able to repeat this. It appears that while looking at the
date/time setting in Setup mode, the camera clock is sometimes not
updated. I don't see how this is related to the above because I doubt
that my son was fiddling with Setup and in any case, those time stamps
are off by 9 hours.

--
Using a Nikon Coolpix 4200
OS: Win 2K
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04)
Related resources
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Top Spin wrote:
[]
> This is very interesting. In only 1 case is the EXIF data the same as
> the file data. Is that because it takes the camera up to 2 seconds to
> write the data to the memory card?

The files are recorded using the FAT file system which only provides a
five-bit field for the file time in seconds - it is coded as even seconds:
i.e 0, 2, 4 .. 58s

David
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:45:44 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Top Spin wrote:
>[]
>> This is very interesting. In only 1 case is the EXIF data the same as
>> the file data. Is that because it takes the camera up to 2 seconds to
>> write the data to the memory card?
>
>The files are recorded using the FAT file system which only provides a
>five-bit field for the file time in seconds - it is coded as even seconds:
>i.e 0, 2, 4 .. 58s

There must also be something else going on, such as the delay time
between when the photo is taken and when it is written to the memory
card. Otherwise, I would expect about half of the file times to agree
with the EXIF data. No?

This camera does take at least a second between shots -- sometimes a
good bit more. I thought I read somewhere that that was I/O time to
the memory card.

--
Using a Nikon Coolpix 4200
OS: Win 2K
Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com
(11/03/04)
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 6:24:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Top Spin wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:45:44 -0000, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Top Spin wrote:
>> []
>>> This is very interesting. In only 1 case is the EXIF data the same
>>> as the file data. Is that because it takes the camera up to 2
>>> seconds to write the data to the memory card?
>>
>> The files are recorded using the FAT file system which only provides
>> a five-bit field for the file time in seconds - it is coded as even
>> seconds: i.e 0, 2, 4 .. 58s
>
> There must also be something else going on, such as the delay time
> between when the photo is taken and when it is written to the memory
> card. Otherwise, I would expect about half of the file times to agree
> with the EXIF data. No?

It depends on the rounding algorithm used by the OS when it writes the
file information to the directory. I've not done an analysis. It may
also be that the EXIF data is timestamped with the time of taking, i.e.
near the start of processing, and the directory timestamp is when the file
is closed by the OS, i.e. near the end of processing. This would be
somewhat consistent with your observed processing time.

Cheers,
David
!