Can the photo filename on the R5/R6 go above 9999? That's always been one of my pet peeves with Canon cameras to date.
Until the exif standard is changed, camera makers must follow it. All of those that meet the standard have the same issue.
I don't think they want to change the standard, the software implications for 10's of thousands of pieces of software are not understood so they don't want to cause a big issue.
Until the exif standard is changed, camera makers must follow it. All of those that meet the standard have the same issue.
I don't think they want to change the standard, the software implications for 10's of thousands of pieces of software are not understood so they don't want to cause a big issue.
If this is indeed part of a standard, then obviously designers would make assumptions about the limits of what they have to work with based on the standard. If you go outside of spec for a standard, that does not mean you'll necessarily get issues. But if you do, you have noone but yourself to blame, as the standard sets the limits on what has to be supported by others.Could you, please, give a scenario in which a change would cause some software to break?
As I said, I don't think its possible to know what programmers of literally tens of thousands of pieces of software and firmware have in their software that has a similar limit. The committee that produces the exif standard obviously does not consider it a issue. Users of software like Adobe Lightroom have developed workflows that rename and renumber files, so the issue has a workaround.Could you, please, give a scenario in which a change would cause some software to break?
Camera manufacturers surely have representation on the exif committee as well as scanner manufacturers, smart phone manufacturers, but the smaller companies that make specialized devices that use exif don't. I doubt that any of the many makers of dash cams are represented, for example. Same with wildlife cameras, there are tons of surveillance cameras and machine cameras, the list must be very long. The impact of changing the standard would be very costly at the least.
Yes, they would have to comply with a new standard. They would spend a ton of money to redesign software, and possibly equipment, and customers that acquired the images in their workflows could also be affected.Those are examples of devices that create & name the files. Those wouldn't break if the standard is changed. Question is whether there are any devices that read the files and depend on the cameras to adhere to it.
Yes, they would have to comply with a new standard. They would spend a ton of money to redesign software, and possibly equipment, and customers that acquired the images in their workflows could also be affected.
Fat and exFat have nothing to do with the exif file naming convention. They do not format cards either, commands are sent from the computer to format a card. A card reader is a interface device.Except on the reader side the standard is FAT32 / exFAT. This means as much time and money as required to mark the task as "closed without any code changes".
Fat and exFat have nothing to do with the exif file naming convention.
Who said they did?Exactly.
Applications like Lightroom, DPP, and DxO can read images from any FAT32, exFAT, or NTFS volume, even if the file names do not adhere to the EXIF file naming convention. If a memory card is exFAT formatted, why would those applications care if the images on it were saved adhering to the EXIF file naming convention or not?
Who said they did?
Committee members have learned by hard experience that they can cause a mess by tinkering when they do not understand the implications.
If you have a dash cam which produces a exif stamp and sends it to a phone app, you do not know for sure how the phone app is internally structured.
Imagine going to your boss and asking him to approve paying you to work on a project to expand exif numbers. He will first ask how it would benefit your company financially.
Can the photo filename on the R5/R6 go above 9999? That's always been one of my pet peeves with Canon cameras to date.
Could you, please, give a scenario in which a change would cause some software to break?
Fat and exFat have nothing to do with the exif file naming convention.
If they don't, then the camera can depart from the exif file naming convention without breaking compatibility with those apps. Only questions is what would break.
Any program or library that actually follows the standard and expects filenames to be in the specified format. It is beyond 100% certain that there exists code that only considers filenames that end with exactly four digits.