Opened 12 years ago
Last modified 12 years ago
#642 new enhancement
Add real_world_date / date_taken field
Reported by: | warp | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | programming | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Parent Tickets: |
Description
It would be very useful to be able to sort photographs on the date they were taken (which may be different from the date the image file was created).
This will allow users to for example ask for all photographs taken on July 1976.
When users scan pictures or otherwise digitize older media the file creation date will not match the date of the event pictured in the media. This field is about the date of whatever is pictured in the media, and so should be called something like real_world_date, EXIF calls it date_taken.
For files with an EXIF date_taken field, the equivalent mediagoblin database field should get auto-filled when an image is added. Not all media have such a field, so it should be user editable. The EXIF date_taken could also be wrong, so user editable also means the user should be able to clear/delete the date if it was auto-filled.
I discussed this with Elrond (and odinho) on #mediagoblin, 2013-02-18 19:45 UTC.
Change History (4)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 12 years ago
Milestone: | → 0.3.4 |
---|
comment:2 by , 12 years ago
Replying to elrond:
- Decide on a good sql name for the field. Things like
created
are not good, because we usually call the "this db record has been created"-dates with that name.date_taken
is quite image centric, I think. Need further discussion.- Decide on the db representation. We were discussing on "fuzzy dates" (like "sometime in summer 1905").
This would fit when searching for photos as it's quite intuitive. It would be kind of hard to store it that way and get a good performance on it compared to a DATETIME
I guess.
- Create logic to fill it from EXIF.
As discovered with the JSON + GstDate issue, it seems that video also may carry this kind of date.
comment:3 by , 12 years ago
Related, but different: #532
532 is about showing more exif info.
642 is about having a db field for this stuff.
comment:4 by , 12 years ago
Milestone: | 0.4.0 |
---|
To be honest, I doubt we'll get this done for 0.4.0.
We could start. But I doubt we'll finish.
I think, we should investigate this after the next release (I doubt we'll get to it for this release). So setting the milestone. (This thing is actionable, so no need to postpone it indefinitely).
Steps needed:
created
are not good, because we usually call the "this db record has been created"-dates with that name.date_taken
is quite image centric, I think. Need further discussion.