That’s just the difference between accepted, ‘photographical’ values and real, measured values.
Hermeto Cream of the Crop 6,674 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada More info | Nov 02, 2007 06:01 | #16 Permanent banThat’s just the difference between accepted, ‘photographical’ values and real, measured values. What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dicktay Senior Member 603 posts Joined Jan 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia More info | Nov 02, 2007 06:04 | #17 Just keep in mind you are converting from analogue values of apertures and shutter speeds to digital for processing and then back to analogue in the program that displays EXIF data.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop 10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Nov 02, 2007 06:04 | #18 OK - I need to tweak this a bit having read the EXIF specification document. xarqi wrote in post #4237639 By my reading, shutter speed and exposure time begin the same, but because of the way the information is stored, there is a slight variation. In one case, a log function is invoked, and this is then truncated; in the other, the value is stored as a real number directly (also of finite precision). Conversion of these possibly slightly different stored values to the conventional form 1/x, (especially when x will be rounded to an integer) may result in different values being displayed. It turns out that EXIF stores these values as pairs of 48 bit integers, representing a signed (in the case of shutter speed) or unsigned (in the case of exposure time) rational number: e.g. if the stored values are 1 and 2, the number is 1/2; if they are -3 and 8, the number is -3/8.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ANGUS THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 6,897 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia... More info | Nov 02, 2007 06:12 | #19 Thanks guys fully understand now. Angus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Riverlander Senior Member 686 posts Joined May 2007 Location: Riverland, South Australia More info | Nov 02, 2007 07:26 | #20 If the shutter speed is 1/250 then one full stop either way is either 1/125 or 1/500 - so why would you bother about it saying 1/256 in stead of 1/250 Canon; 7D with grip, EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105L, 580EX II flash, 550EX flash, 430EX flash, Sigma; 18-50 f/2.8, 50-150 f/2.8, 120-300 f/2.8, 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 OS, 30 f/1.4, 150 Macro; Sigma APO 1.4x and 2x converters, Benro M-257 tripod & B-1 ballhead. Wimberley Sidekick. Lots of other stuff.http://riverlander.smugmug.com/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ANGUS THREAD STARTER Cream of the Crop 6,897 posts Joined Apr 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia... More info | Nov 02, 2007 07:28 | #21 I was simply wondering why but i know now so i am fine. Angus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
xarqi Cream of the Crop 10,435 posts Likes: 2 Joined Oct 2005 Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand More info | Nov 02, 2007 07:33 | #22 Riverlander wrote in post #4238020 If the shutter speed is 1/250 then one full stop either way is either 1/125 or 1/500 - so why would you bother about it saying 1/256 in stead of 1/250 ??APEX value stored for shutter speed was equal to -8. 2 to the power of -8 = 1/256.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2936 guests, 140 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||