Could it be that the camera (or the operator) got confused between 12:00 and 12:00 (i.e., 1200 and 2400.) That could throw you off depending on time of day of the shots you are using as your baseline markers.
stan On Mar 2, 2011, at 4:16 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Doug Franklin >> On 2011-03-02 3:23, John Sessoms wrote: >>> > I was just hoping someone would have an idea why the date error appears >>> > to be jumping around like it is. >>> > >>> > It's 453 days, then a week later it's 452 days and three weeks after >>> > that it's 454 days. >> Maybe due to the change in when Daylight Savings Time starts and ends? > > I don't know. I figure Fall Back 2006 ought to cancel out Spring Forward > 2006, so that only leaves a possible Spring Forward 2007. > > 2006 S.F. April 02, F.B. October 29; 2007 S.F. March 11. > > We were already on Daylight Savings Time when I got the camera and all of the > KNOWN dates are after the switch over. All I can see it doing is making for > one hour less difference *if* we had still been on the old schedule. I don't > see how it would make a DAY's difference. > > Both the calendar and the camera should be incrementing at the same rate. And > that's what appears to NOT be happening here. > > The calendar incremented by 7 days and the camera incremented by 8 days (253 > -> 252). > > Assuming I start with the 1/02/06 EXIF date that MUST represent a Saturday > due to the subject matter, the following Saturday should be 1/09/2006, but > it's 1/10/2006. > > Then when the calendar had incremented 28 days, the camera only incremented > 27 Days (253 -> 254). The camera EXIF date should be 1/30/2006, if you count > 28 days (the week + 21 day AT) from the that Saturday, but instead shows > 1/29/2006. > > And if you calculate from the 1/10/2006 date that correlates with the first > day of AT, 21 days later should be 1/31/2006, but instead it's 1/29/2006 - > the clock only incremented 19 days from 1/10/2006. > > The camera gained a day, then it lost two days. > > Makes me crazy! > > Or am I overlooking something obvious here? > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3476 - Release Date: 03/01/11 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
