zlacker

>>walz+(OP)
Nice and all, but aside: just reminds of the ridiculous/lame design choice from the great Apple to use that filename. How many shared photos sent in emails to me from iPhones with subject IMG_0001. Classic Apple removing any kind of useful functionality because the users wouldn't need to interact with files or know more about the system. A date in the filename would have killed them? IMG_20070629 or whatever..sigh.

>>ChrisA+J2
It's pretty standard practice for all cameras manufacturers to use a basic incremental filename. Many more useful data are embedded in jpeg exif metadata.

On the contrary including a date in the filename could be perceived as user hostile because none of the multiple iso representations (or non iso) is universally used and understood by the general public.

Eg : 20241112, 1112024, 1211024, 131208, 081213 and so on...

>>Twisel+X4
I think the issue is more that the battery runs out and now it's 2007 again and you start overwriting img_20070101_01.jpg ; last-directory-entry++ is a bit more robust.