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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
