Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IMG_0416

ben-mini.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: IMG_0416

#191

Post by walthamstow »

agilob wrote: post #178
Lammy wrote: post #138

> Apple uses the ‘IMG_XXXX’ naming convention for all images and videos captured on iOS devices, where XXXX is a unique sequence number. For what it's worth, Apple are just conforming to the JEITA/CIPA DCF standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy... “DCF file names” specification sez… http://www.kronometric.org/phot/std/DC-009-2010_E.pdf#page=2... “File names conforming to the following…

It's really cool that such standard exists, the worst thing about Pixel phones is stupid filenames of pictures and videos, not only it's not following this standard, but contains WRONG timestamp. For example, picture with name `PLX_20241101_115855.jpg` was taken at 12:58:55, not 11 as the name suggests, but also picture with name `PLX_20240913_191525.jpg` was taken at 19:15:25. A video on the other hand would have a…

British? Sounds like it's recording UTC time in the file name, which is only correct during winter.

Re: IMG_0416

#192

Post by redbell »

Excellent read, OP! I really enjoyed this, especially being your very first post here. I hope to see more posts from you in the future.

I didn't know this feature existed back in the days, and you just cannot ignore the haptic feedback feeling when you watch original, unedited content from random people who were filming not for the sake of publishing to the mass but just for themselves and friends/family to keep these records as memories. This reminds me of the pre-smartphone era where people used to own handheld, personal cameras to capture special moments of their lives as souvenirs.

Also, regarding these "IMG_XXX" videos, one notable pattern is that they all have very low number views, for an obvious reason. The odd one to this pattern is this pregnancy video, which had the number of views jumped from 16 in ten years to to 1,650 in 10 hours. Also, checking the comments' section, they are all new, with the first (oldest) one being posted 9 hours ago.

Re: IMG_0416

#193

Post by Eisenstein »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #136
abixb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercialization and infiltration of advertising-dollars-seeking "influencers" ruins social media sites. I miss the early days of the internet (and especially YouTube) so fucking much. I'm 28 now, and I've been online since 2009. I think 2009-2014 was the GOLDEN AGE of the internet for me, especially on YouTube.

I'm a couple of years older, and I generally agree with you. But even up until 2016 it was generally tolerable. There was a point in time when every single social media changed from "you and your friends" to "you and the world". Which opened the hellscape of influencer and branding world. I'm not sure what exactly accelerated it - Facebook/IG going algo-view first, TikTok starting to get traction even when it was jus…

What happened right around 2016 was a combination of the internet being weaponized in the political space and the destruction of of revenue for legacy media because of Facebook and Google and other walled systems which ingested their IP and served it to their users. This effectively made people paranoid of data that didn't immediately fit into their world view because the concept of any shared truth was shattered and at the same time it felt like everything and everyone on the internet was targeted to misinform you.

The 'mainstream media' was never taken seriously by people savvy in the early tech spaces, so the loss of it didn't really hit us as particularly impactful. But that loss made it so that the 'mainstream' no longer had any 'ground truth' they could all fall back on that would be the arbiter of correct and incorrect information, and so truth became whatever felt most right to a person at the time.

This of course has more to do with the people and culture you most identify with, rather than any kind of objective comparison of data, so groups looked more inwards and became ossified in dogma and refused to look at any other perspective in good faith. And here we are.

Re: IMG_0416

#194

Post by kawsper »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #74
tokioyoyo wrote: post #24

A little bit tangent, and I'm definitely looking at it from rose colored glasses... but been playing with it for the 30 minutes, and most of the videos look so real? Like when you go on TikTok / Instagram nowadays, there are obviously unlimited amount of content. But there's this sense of everything being edited multiple times, people trying to create their own "brand", nothing looking real. It's a shame how we over-…

2:30am at a 7-11 near Disney World - 1987 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbe-35_BaA

There's a 2014 update to that video made by the same people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8n11y2lxrE

Re: IMG_0416

#195

Post by bionoid »

albert_e wrote: post #51
mastazi wrote: post #11

The website http://astronaut.io/ does a similar thing but for recent videos, and not just from iPhones. From the home page: > These videos come from YouTube. They were uploaded in the last week and have titles like DSC 1234 and IMG 4321. They have almost zero previous views. They are unnamed, unedited, and unseen (by anyone but you). At one point you might be at a school recital in Malaysia, and the next minute you a…

I just opened it in incognito in Chrome on Android noticed that the YouTube videos continue playing without interruption even when I switch to another tab or minimize chrome altogether and switch to another app. how can we harness this power to play our favorite audio tracks in background (without any ads to boot ... shhh don't tell Google) I also notice that the website triggers a browser warning when loading that i…

I use Video Background Play Fix [1] (along with uBlock of course). "Firefox for Android can continue playing video even if you switch to another tab or app. However, sites can detect these user actions with the Page Visibility API and the Fullscreen API. This add-on is designed to block events and properties exposed by the APIs."

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play

Re: IMG_0416

#196

Post by agilob »

walthamstow wrote: post #191
agilob wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really cool that such standard exists, the worst thing about Pixel phones is stupid filenames of pictures and videos, not only it's not following this standard, but contains WRONG timestamp. For example, picture with name `PLX_20241101_115855.jpg` was taken at 12:58:55, not 11 as the name suggests, but also picture with name `PLX_20240913_191525.jpg` was taken at 19:15:25. A video on the other hand would have a…

British? Sounds like it's recording UTC time in the file name, which is only correct during winter.

> British?

Nope, but it's a Pixel thing

Re: IMG_0416

#197

Post by BandButcher »

blahgeek wrote: post #118

Reading half way through the post, I thought what the author going to do was to analyze the distribution of numbers in the filename, and, I don't know, maybe give an estimation about how often people take photos or videos, based on the time, country, etc. That would be an interesting study.

ironically, im glad this post wasn't about that. that would've been too typical of HN imo. why talk about metadata when you can just enjoy the data itself??

Re: IMG_0416

#198

Post by jval43 »

agilob wrote: post #178
Lammy wrote: post #138

> Apple uses the ‘IMG_XXXX’ naming convention for all images and videos captured on iOS devices, where XXXX is a unique sequence number. For what it's worth, Apple are just conforming to the JEITA/CIPA DCF standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy... “DCF file names” specification sez… http://www.kronometric.org/phot/std/DC-009-2010_E.pdf#page=2... “File names conforming to the following…

It's really cool that such standard exists, the worst thing about Pixel phones is stupid filenames of pictures and videos, not only it's not following this standard, but contains WRONG timestamp. For example, picture with name `PLX_20241101_115855.jpg` was taken at 12:58:55, not 11 as the name suggests, but also picture with name `PLX_20240913_191525.jpg` was taken at 19:15:25. A video on the other hand would have a…

FWIW that is not a Pixel-specific issue. I encountered this on other cameras (IIRC Olympus and GoPro) as well. It's maddening.

The issue stems from the fact that images are written with proper EXIF time and timezone metadata while videos from the same camera might only store a timestamp field. Whether that's local time, UTC, or something else depends on the camera and how you configured it.

Re: IMG_0416

#199

Post by InDubioProRubio »

agilob wrote: post #182
nasretdinov wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially daylight savings related? E.g. file names are in UTC, whereas local time obviously isn't

Yes, it's DST related. Now explain why DST offset is different for pictures and videos ;)

Programming employment-creation measure - to prevent them doing damage elsewhere by adding abstraction madhouses.

Re: IMG_0416

#200

Post by rob74 »

agilob wrote: post #178
Lammy wrote: post #138

> Apple uses the ‘IMG_XXXX’ naming convention for all images and videos captured on iOS devices, where XXXX is a unique sequence number. For what it's worth, Apple are just conforming to the JEITA/CIPA DCF standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy... “DCF file names” specification sez… http://www.kronometric.org/phot/std/DC-009-2010_E.pdf#page=2... “File names conforming to the following…

It's really cool that such standard exists, the worst thing about Pixel phones is stupid filenames of pictures and videos, not only it's not following this standard, but contains WRONG timestamp. For example, picture with name `PLX_20241101_115855.jpg` was taken at 12:58:55, not 11 as the name suggests, but also picture with name `PLX_20240913_191525.jpg` was taken at 19:15:25. A video on the other hand would have a…

A lot of the DCF standard is designed around the limitations of FAT file systems, e.g. filenames limited to 8+3 characters, directories limited to 9999 "items" (which I assume is to make sure that there won't be more than 65,536 files in a directory). As Pixel phones don't use FAT, Google probably doesn't feel bound by this standard. Their naming convention allows the phones to store all photos/videos in a single directory.
Post reply on HN