UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« on: September 04, 2010, 03:06:43 PM » |
|
Does QU use the time stamp as well as the date stamp when sorting? I ask because in QU when I sort to ~ date - ~ it does not seem to take into account the time stamp, only the date. This results in my cards downloading in a different order that the shoot. Camera is a Nikon D700. Thanks for any info you can provide. I don't remember this being a problem with Qimage Studio version.
Example: Here's how they appear in the preview window (starting at the top left): 700_0375.nef 700_0376.nef 700_0373.nef 700_0374.nef 700_0377.nef 700_0380.nef 700_0381.nef 700_0378.nef 700_0379.nef
Per the "date created", the order should be 0381 thru 0373 with 0381 being in the top left of the preview window. It appears that QU is using the date I transferred the files from the card to my hard drive instead of the actual date created.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 03:29:01 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2010, 03:39:24 PM » |
|
I would have to mention that EDIT PREFERENCES offers you a variety of sort options. I normally do Names +, but changed to Date + My folder with 113 Raw images resorted by Date stamp + time (including minutes and seconds) as some were shot rapidly with 3 or 4 shots in less than a minute. Coincidentally, the numerical filenames happen to coincide with the time stamp. It is sorting by time stamp though, as some of the images were copied and have unique filnames.
Fred
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2010, 04:26:54 PM » |
|
It's by both date and time so there are two possibilities:
(1) Qimage cannot read the EXIF time stamp in the files so it is using file date/time and the file date/time is not consistent with when the files were actually created on the card.
(2) The EXIF date/time in each image is not correct.
Seems that the first one is more likely. When cameras write to flash cards, they are supposed to write the files with a file modification date equal to the EXIF date/time stamped inside each image. Take a look at your files and look at the file date/time and see what order that shows. Maybe it is following that, which should normally be OK unless the camera (or something else) fouled up the file modified date/time.
Regards, Mike
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MelW
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2010, 12:55:27 AM » |
|
By the way - for what it's worth - numerical file names don't always correspond to time sequence 100% of the time. On my D200, if I take pictures a repid sequence (3 or 4 frames a second), there will be scattered images out of time sequence. Has to do with the way the images are buffered before being stored on the flash memory. Other than that Fred has it - as he usually seems to.
Mel
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2010, 02:49:28 PM » |
|
Thanks for the replies. I've modified this response several times. Suffice it to say, I can't get them to sort in the correct order using the date +/- field in Edit Preferences section. Using a date/time field showing only date:hour:minute:second will not be enough to keep the files in order. If I'm shooting at 9fps that data will be written EXACTLY THE SAME 9 times to the card. There has to be another (or an additional) field to retain correct shooting order.
As an aside, I've started a ticket with Nikon to discuss MelW's comment about file numbers not being written in the order they were shot. As I shoot motorsports I really can't have shots coming out in some random order. Maybe it was a D200 thing...
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 02:05:58 AM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2010, 08:59:55 AM » |
|
There has to be another (or an additional) field to retain correct shooting order.
Have you tried sorting by NAMES + or - ? Unless you are shooting Video, each shot should have a number of its own, No? Fred
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2010, 01:12:30 PM » |
|
File date/time is actually stored down to the millisecond so that shouldn't be a problem. Most programs only show the second but the file modified date/time is actually accurate to the millisecond. I doubt your Nikon is fast enough to shoot two on the same millisecond. So it's down to: does the camera write the proper date/time (down to the millisecond)? Maybe the camera is only writing to the second? If so... I'd say that's the camera's fault, and possibly they can enhance in firmware. Edit: While the time is returned to the millisecond, it appears the OS doesn't actually resolve it that fast, so we're down to the EXIF data which only resolves to the second. Bottom line, I don't think it is possible to sort by date/time when shooting at 9 fps because the data is not there to support it. Mike
|
|
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 01:26:15 PM by Mike Chaney »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2010, 04:07:06 PM » |
|
Bottom line, I don't think it is possible to sort by date/time when shooting at 9 fps because the data is not there to support it.
Mike
Correct if you are only using the info out to the second. I asked Nikon "When shooting at high speed on a Nikon DSLR (D200-300-700), is it possible that the order of the shots taken will be incorrectly named? For instance, if I shoot 10 shots in 2 seconds, will they ALWAYS be saved in the correct order, i.e., 1 thru 10? Or is it possible the order will change so that they are not named in the shooting order?" They replied: "In regards to your inquiry, it isn't possible that the shots get named incorrectly" so the story about saving files by buffer order is urban legend (or a malfunctioning camera). As I said, Nikon software does not have any problems with a date sort so they must be reading some other (or additional) field(s) for the date sort function. Nikon also gives you the option of sorting by either date created or date modified, ascending or descending. So you can always put your shots back into correct shooting order by date regardless of any name changes or edits, which is what I was hoping would be possible in QU.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2010, 04:08:20 PM » |
|
Have you tried sorting by NAMES + or - ? Unless you are shooting Video, each shot should have a number of its own, No?
Fred
That only works until you change a filename...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2010, 08:35:43 PM » |
|
They're probably just sorting by file name by virtue of the fact that they are creating the file names in order in the first place. If the camera puts the proper order on the file names, why not just leave the original file name as part of the (end result) file name? That's the only way you're going to be able to sort them in as-shot order anyway. Both the EXIF date/time and the file date/time won't resolve to 9 fps.
Mike
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MelW
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2010, 08:55:28 PM » |
|
Urban legend or not - I can tell you it has happened to me - not often - and I will have to dig a little for the examples because I don't often shoot that rapid fire - but I do have instances where the image name and the date/time sequence are different. And how do you suppose I even noticed this? I noticed because of Qimage of course. When I sorted by file name, there were one or two pictures in different order than sorting by date time (one or two out of say 200). Lates this week I will dig up the examples to make sure that I am not the one out of order.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2010, 04:45:06 PM » |
|
Mel - don't look them up for my sake! You might want to send them to Nikon though They are the only ones that have the know-how to see the correct fields in the file as it is well below basic EXIF. The "creation date" is the sort field they use in their software and you can't change that with any basic editor I have found. It would be pointless to post anything here since the visible filename is changeable at will. As for the issue, I'll just keep sorting, and editing, in Nikon NX2 and transfer only those I wish to print to QU. Unfortunately, that kinda defeats MY purpose of going from Studio to Ultimate.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 04:51:29 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2010, 05:04:50 PM » |
|
Unfortunately, that kinda defeats MY purpose of going from Studio to Ultimate. If this is just because of sort order and your current desire to re-name some images, how about re-thinking the re-naming policy? This is what I do fwiw: I never re-name a raw file except as it's copied from the flash card and always keep the camera file number in the file name. The first part of the name is the file date (yy-mm-dd when it was taken) and I sort by name. Any files converted from the raw are nearly always in a separate folder and would get renamed there as required. Terry
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2010, 05:38:29 PM » |
|
I never re-name a raw file except as it's copied from the flash card and always keep the camera file number in the file name. The first part of the name is the file date (yy-mm-dd when it was taken) and I sort by name. Any files converted from the raw are nearly always in a separate folder and would get renamed there as required. Terry
If you only have the yy-mm-dd in your name sort, how do you keep it in correct shooting order? That's not enough info unless you only shoot ONE photo per day! I'm dealing, theoretically, with shoots that typically have over 1000 shots per day, occurring in 50-75 frame bursts (such as a NASCAR road race in a given corner - although I shoot motorcycles, mostly )...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2010, 06:02:28 PM » |
|
If you only have the yy-mm-dd in your name sort, how do you keep it in correct shooting order? I said: "and always keep the camera file number in the file name" Does your camera not keep those in sequence I was adding to what Fred said & your reply: Have you tried sorting by NAMES + or - ? Unless you are shooting Video, each shot should have a number of its own, No? Fred
That only works until you change a filename... It just seemed a poor reason not to take advantage of QU; there's always other way of approaching a problem. Oh and btw, That's not enough info unless you only shoot ONE photo per day! That is definitely not me. Terry
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|