M8 skips file numbers--anyone else?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Spent an hour today doing some focus tests. Turned up something unexpected:

 

I shot 26 exposures (DNG only), but the camera file numbers advanced by 33 numbers. That is, if I go only by the file names, it looks as if someone had deleted 7 files, even though all the images I shot are present. It's simply that the camera didn't use some of the numbers.

 

The "Image unique ID" numbers increment by 1 each time as they should.

 

This doesn't seem like a major issue unless I'm under CIA surveillance (this is "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you know), but I'm curious:

 

1) Does anyone see a downside to this?

 

2) Has this happened to you?

 

Thanks.

 

--HC

[luigi bertolotti]

Spent an hour today doing some focus tests. Turned up something unexpected:

 

I shot 26 exposures (DNG only), but the camera file numbers advanced by 33 numbers. That is, if I go only by the file names, it looks as if someone had deleted 7 files, even though all the images I shot are present. It's simply that the camera didn't use some of the numbers.

 

The "Image unique ID" numbers increment by 1 each time as they should.

 

This doesn't seem like a major issue unless I'm under CIA surveillance (this is "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you know), but I'm curious:

 

1) Does anyone see a downside to this?

 

 

2) Has this happened to you?

 

Thanks.

 

--HC

 

It happened to me... I did not take note of the missing numbers so cannot remember detail, but it was in a particular situation : a macro session with low light (indoor) : I shot DNG 160 ISO on tripod, bellows extended...so that some pics were taken at very long times (1/2 to even 4 sec) and so the auto noise reduction was clearly working... when I saw the "strange" numbering I thought it was someway related to the "black" shot made by noise reduction... but did not check the consistency of my hypotesis...and after all the thing gave no kind of nuisance. Never happened anymore.

[ho_co]

Good thought, Luigi!

 

Mine wasn't macro, but it was relatively low light from a tripod at ISO 160, and speeds ranging from 1/8 to 3 sec.

 

I haven't checked the details, but your analysis makes good sense!

 

Thanks.

 

The only downside I can see would be a case in which a client demanded all results of a shoot and the photographer would have to prove that s/he hadn't deleted any shots by pointing to the "Image unique ID" count.

 

--HC

[papimuzo]

It happened to me.[...........] I thought it was someway related to the "black" shot made by noise reduction... but did not check the consistency of my hypotesis.....

 

Hi HC,

I can't second your hypothesis: I clearly got the "black shot" two times (PLEASE don't laugh!) as I took pictures of the lens cap:eek: and the numbering was rightly sequential:)

Perhaps some glitches when writing the memory card?

All the best.

Marcel

[jaapv]

I suppose it is part of the slightly unstable numbering and reviewing on 1.102. It is relatively unimportant, but I suppose 1.11 will cure this kind of issues.

[scott kirkpatrick]

The "Image unique ID" numbers increment by 1 each time as they should.

 

 

Howard, what tool do you use to extract the "image unique ID," which is as close as we come to having a shutter activation count?

 

scott

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Howard, what tool do you use to extract the "image unique ID," which is as close as we come to having a shutter activation count?

 

scott

 

Open Windows Calculator in scientific mode and tick the HEX button then type in the last 3 charaters of the IUID then tick the Dec button. Do the same for Mac using whatever calc program they have.

[fotografr]

It happened to me once. I had been deleting select images while on a shoot and later noticed there were blocks of number skipped. I don't delete like that anymore and it hasn't happened again.

[fotografr]

(PLEASE don't laugh!) as I took pictures of the lens cap

Marcel

 

 

We're not laughing. :D Would never do that to a fellow Leica user.

[ho_co]

... what tool do you use to extract the "image unique ID" ... ?

 

Scott--

It's in the file's EXIF in Adobe Bridge CS2 version 1.0.4.6 under Mac OS X version 10.4.10. I assume it's available in Bridge under other systems as well.

 

The count is in hex, of course, so I need a hex > decimal calculator to decipher it, but it's easy enough to check the increment from one file to the next.

 

I haven't checked the "Image unique ID" after a sensor-cleaning sequence; I assume it isn't incremented there. But wouldn't that be the only case where the number deviates from being a shutter-activation count? Till you mentioned that it's "the nearest thing we have," I had considered the two identical (hadn't thought of sensor-cleaning).

 

--HC

[ho_co]

After Luigi's surmise, I double-checked shutter speeds for the files in question and found some consistency:

 

In all cases, skipped file numbers followed indicated exposures of 0.5 or 1.0 second.

 

There were cases of exposures of those lengths that were not followed by file number skips, and also cases of exposures of 0.5 second that were followed by skips of two file numbers.

 

There were no cases of missing file numbers following exposures of any other lengths, nor any cases of more than two missing file numbers in a row.

 

Exposure lengths represented in the sequence were:

1/11 sec (five times)

1/8 sec (twice)

0.3 sec (once)

0.5 sec (nine times, with two cases of single and two of double skipped file numbers)

0.7 sec (three times)

1.0 sec (five times, with one case of skipped file number)

3.0 sec (once)

 

Certainly not enough data to draw any conclusions, but an interesting consistency, it seems to me!

 

--HC