If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote: "Alan wrote:\ One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two pools of photo takers. Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however). Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital data. My point was that even the conservators are unlikely to survive the number of generations being tossed about in this thread. I don't know of much of today's imaging media _can_ survive for that long even with extraordinary effort, but digital media are the most vulnerable of the lot. This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a likelihood of a portion surviving. Not a reasonable way to calculate this. Agreed, but it's a no-brainer that this is a grossly optimistic notion. It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the data. But some small part of a really big number is still a lot. You totally ignore that this data is MUCH more fragile than prints or film is. You have to physically destroy them for them to 100% fail. Given lots of the "billions of images taken" never are even saved to a hard drive (most are garbage and just are deleted)the chances of a "deluge of images" being around even 10 years from now is being naive.. In fact MOST people predict the exact opposite, this era will be a vacuum of images. I fully agree with your perspective. For relatively short time periods, such as 10-20 years, the images posted to the web are more likely to survive than those privately held, largely because of the extraordinary effort involved in maintaining that data. But the economics work against long-term archiving of typical images in this manner. Stephanie, I think notions of archiving digital information boils down to "some people get it, and most don't", with my clients of longer than 10 years falling in the latter category. -- best, Neil --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote: "Alan wrote:\ One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two pools of photo takers. Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however). Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital data. It's like you don't read. What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of photos that go 500 years. /snip - follow the thread/ . egads...questions, questions, followed by more questions from one Alan Browne. Hey Alan - I have two questions for you that you didn't answer in another thread but instead faded away - You said as per my cited references in that thread, and I quote: "I did say "show me an authoritative source that says the opposite of digital is analog, that film is an analog." "So far a lot of comparisons or references to hobby sites." Question 1: In exactly what hobby do you place The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved. http://foldoc.org/computing+dictionary ? Question 2: Why do you see that American Heritage Science Dictionary not to be authoritative? ummm...and if you will, please answer the same two questions relative to each and every one of my other cited references. I'm just curious as to how your world looks at these as being hobby sites and not authoritative. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ http://www.synonym.com/antonym/ http://dictionary.reference.com/ which in addtion to the The American Heritage Science Dictionary references The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 http://www.wordwebonline.com/ http://words.bighugelabs.com/ http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/ which references Wordnet Dictionary http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ and http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin which also references Wordnet Dictionary http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote: On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote: "Alan wrote: On 10-03-10 16:31 , wrote: If anything, MOST of the digital images shot today will disappear in 10 years or less. I highly doubt very many people do any sort of archival That's why I said 1 in 1,000,000 surviving images. Considering the number of photos shot today, it will still be a deluge of images. One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two pools of photo takers. Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however). One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators" will not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG is that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and due You guess (1 B) is about the same as mine (prev. post to stephe) to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10 years. That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem. I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so little in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so on. The lack of photographic information on these people has not prevented a rich interpretation of their lives. Now we have a deluge of images. 1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't care for their images. In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make these REALLY last a long time." And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images surviving. That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive. But the probability can always be improved. See my last post to stephe regarding other things that will promote the survival of some (even many) images over the long term. By your own statement, the digital images that survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their data. I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller group making extraordinary efforts. I don't know what you mean by "best reasonable effort", but what I'm referring to is that for digital data to survive longer than one generation, the interest in preserving the data has to be continued across generations. If one considers the preservation of collections of any type to be a guide, it is easy to see that less than extraordinary efforts in maintaining digital data will be inadequate. I think we're at odds over the following: You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given, specific images surviving for a long time. I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say which, will survive by chance. However, in either case, images that are prepared to survive are statistically more likely to than those that aren't. in order to keep a digital image for 500 years, I'd say that your notion is grossly overestimated, if for no other reason than the cost of the effort to preserve them. To be clear: I'm really addressing "survivors" on a statistical basis. And of course survival favours the prepared. For that many generations, the statistics favor retentions closer to zero. The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media. The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of 500 years. Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to 200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over the long term - even in well sealed media. While some of that media will fail before those dates, most should make it to those dates, and a fraction will survive 2 to 3 times longer, esp. if kept cool, dark and dry. It's just big, big, big numbers and the survival of some of the data. But some small part of a really big number is still a lot. Pure fantasy. ? I should mention the image agencies such as Corbis which amass images (film and digital) and go to great lengths to preserve those images. No reason to mention such organizations. They are representative of the extraordinary efforts I referred to, and even their survival is not likely to be for 500 years. I address this in my reply to Stephe. In effect where the organization might fail as a commercial entity, someone (organization) could acquire the data of the failed entity. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-11 23:33 , wrote: Alan Browne wrote: On 10-03-10 23:59 , Neil Gould wrote: "Alan wrote:\ One problem with this line of reasoning is that you are describing two pools of photo takers. Yes to the "two pools" notion, and the "conservators" being a much smaller group. (I don't see that as a "problem" however). Of course you don't, it's your position and you have repeatedly shown you have no intent on ever bending your position no matter how much evidence is thrown at you. I highly doubt the "conservators" are much more than .1% of camera users, if even that. And of those an even smaller % will be successful at even 100 year archival status of digital data. It's like you don't read. What part of 1 in 1,000,000 is so hard for you to get? And even if the number is 1 in 10,000,000 there will still be an immense number of photos that go 500 years. Where are you pulling these numbers from? I could just as easily say 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 might survive. You have absolutely nothing to base this on. By your own statement, the digital images that survive will be managed by those that take extraordinary care of their data. I'd characterize it more as "best reasonable effort." Which is orders of magnitude better than ordinary neglect. And then an even smaller group making extraordinary efforts. The problem with digital "best reasonable effort" = failure. With film that wasn't the case. So with digital ONLY the "extraordinary efforts" What do you mean by that? Did all film and print images survive? Of course not. Faded by direct light, attacked by fungus, burned in fires, diluted by 3rd and more copy generations - only a fraction of film and print images have survived. Digital images get the same notional chance, no matter how small that chance is. It's not even CLOSE to the same chance. Digital images are MUCH more fragile. And that smaller chance is offset by sheer volume of images produced. Based on what statistics? will = success. I recently found some B&W negatives of my parents as children, they are at least 80 years old and the only effort taken was they were put in an envelope and put in a drawer, forgotten. Forgotten in the dark, probably reasonable humidity and heat. At that they've probably faded more than you think even if they are quite good looking today. But if a CD was this "faded" you'd get NOTHING off it. These still print fine. I have some prints that were made on early color that all faded to red but you can still see what they are. A digital file this "corrupted" would be gibberish. But that doesn't mean ALL film from ALL time has survived. Digital images get the same chance. Some will survive much longer, esp. if prepared to do so. And again, even of those that are prepared, a fraction will squeak through. But film "reasonably kept" i.e. put in a drawer in a house that didn't catch on fire would survive with no action needed. THAT has been proven. These accelerated tests can't take into account everything that happens over time. This is not likely to be the same group that will generate the large number of images you are basing your "1 in 1,000,000 surviving images" upon. Considering the archival replication processes necessary Really to illustrate the vast number of photos taken that drive a likelihood of a portion surviving. Not a reasonable way to calculate this. One can't make a certain calculation only a reasonable guesstimate - and that's all I proposed. Again your number are based on what? Let's take 1 billion photos per day as a guessing point. Guessed by who? You trying to make a point? 1 year = 365 billion images. 10 years = 3.65 trillion images. If out of those 10 years, 1 in 1,000,000 survive, that makes well over three million images that survive 500 years. I could be off by 100 times. That still makes over 30,000 images. And you think less than 30,000 film images survived the same time span? That isn't a "deluge"... All I'm saying is that there will likely be digital images from today that survive. And of course those that are prepared to do so, are most likely to do so, even if the chance is quite small. As to film it requires no less or more chance to survive. Fading is not the sole criteria. As to film v. digital, well the photos that are being taken (digital in the large) have a much larger chance of surviving than those that are not (film has fallen a lot). There are many people born in the last 10 - 20 years who have only ever taken digital images and will never take a film image. Just because of this, doesn't make film less archival, just means people are naive if they think these digital ones will be around very long. True enough, although many of the images in Corbis et al are not professional, not even commercial. Many are historical in nature and such will continue to accrete and gain in importance. The question here is whether Corbis (and others) survive; if they die as a business does someone else take over the images? Then again maybe they don't.. Further, what is trivial today may become important in the future. I recall one archeologist talking about some ancient finds at an Egyptian site. Decoded it was shopping lists, inventories, accounts and plain old gossip. And this would be seen as "trivial" by the shooter and deleted to make more room on the card before they ever got home. You quote a billion images a day taken, I wonder how many of those ever make it off the memory card.. I'd be shocked at 50%.. Stephanie |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote: much snipped: follow the thread One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators" will not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG is that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and due to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10 years. That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem. I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so little in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so on. The lack of photographic information on these people has not prevented a rich interpretation of their lives. A lot has happened in the last 200 years, much of it important to document in as many ways as possible. Those in photography often understand the old saying about the worth of a picture in terms of words, and so it goes. Now we have a deluge of images. 1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't care for their images. No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes media that won't make it 20 years, and so on. In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make these REALLY last a long time." And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images surviving. That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive. But the probability can always be improved. Not without extraordinary effort. I think we're at odds over the following: You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given, specific images surviving for a long time. I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say which, will survive by chance. Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive *by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it at this point. The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media. The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of 500 years. Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to 200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over the long term - even in well sealed media. Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor most of the professionally taken still images. -- best, Neil --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote: On 10-03-12 10:38 , Neil Gould wrote: much snipped: follow the thread One might see it as a problem, if the fact that "conservators" will not be in the larger pool of folks making digital images. My WAG is that there are closer to a billion shots *a day* being taken, and due to the many factors that lead to the loss of digital data, it is a reasonable guess that less than 1% of those will survive for 10 years. That's a pretty drastic difference from your notion, and from a cultural perspective, it can be considered a problem. I see it very differently. First of all, 200 years ago we had so little in terms of images of people of that time, that our notions of their lives are based on writing, sketches, painting, sculptures and so on. The lack of photographic information on these people has not prevented a rich interpretation of their lives. A lot has happened in the last 200 years, much of it important to document in as many ways as possible. Those in photography often understand the old saying about the worth of a picture in terms of words, and so it goes. Now we have a deluge of images. 1% per 10 yr. survival. Reasonable. But that's of people who don't care for their images. No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes media that won't make it 20 years, and so on. I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard disk to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further, many copies will branch into parallel paths. It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data on hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out at ever decreasing prices. I'll hold my number. In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make these REALLY last a long time." And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images surviving. That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive. But the probability can always be improved. Not without extraordinary effort. I think we're at odds over the following: You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given, specific images surviving for a long time. I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say which, will survive by chance. Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive *by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it at this point. I've stated it several times and repeated below. The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media. The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of 500 years. Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to 200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over the long term - even in well sealed media. Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder Quote source. before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media What was the archival media? since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor most of the professionally taken still images. I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's from reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure even those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important). Only buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200 and 300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+). Disks from India should be avoided whether ordinary or archival - they are not sealed properly. And then such disks being kept in cool, dark, dry places. (Which happens to be the right way to preserve film - and the colder the better). -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote: (snip) No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes media that won't make it 20 years, and so on. I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard disk to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further, many copies will branch into parallel paths. It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data on hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out at ever decreasing prices. I'll hold my number. To retain your own images for the remainder your lifetime, this practice is reasonable, but not infallible. To maintain those images across two generations? Three? Is the light coming on yet, Alan? In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make these REALLY last a long time." And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images surviving. That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive. But the probability can always be improved. Not without extraordinary effort. I think we're at odds over the following: You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given, specific images surviving for a long time. I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say which, will survive by chance. Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive *by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it at this point. I've stated it several times and repeated below. The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media. The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of 500 years. Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to 200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over the long term - even in well sealed media. Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder Quote source. The source for what I heard? Me. before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media What was the archival media? Various removable writable media, including "Gold" CDs, etc. Since my business is affected by the cost of maintaining client data, I always use the best available media. since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor most of the professionally taken still images. I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's from reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure even those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important). Only buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200 and 300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+). This is pure nonsense, and only confirms that you are a victim of the marketing drivel that drives such notions. First of all, there are not many primary manufacturers of writable media. Secondly, you can't determine quality by region, except coincidentally. Thirdly, Verbatim and Memorex are not primary manufacturers of discs, their products are sourced from low cost suppliers, as a result are inconsistent and in my experience are typically unreliable for even a couple of years. Now that the basis for your opinion is established by comments that reflect a lack of experience and technical knowledge of the issues that affect the longevity of writable materials, I will bow out of this discussion. -- Neil --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Going back to film...
On 10-03-13 11:01 , Neil Gould wrote:
"Alan wrote: On 10-03-12 17:57 , Neil Gould wrote: (snip) No, IMO that's overall, and non-linear, since that figure includes media that won't make it 20 years, and so on. I'd bet that a lot of images are going to be copied forward (hard disk to hard disk) even if they are ignored, they will survive. Further, many copies will branch into parallel paths. It's getting more and more popular - as well as cheap - to keep data on hard disks and just keep moving it forward as larger disks come out at ever decreasing prices. I'll hold my number. To retain your own images for the remainder your lifetime, this practice is reasonable, but not infallible. To maintain those images across two generations? Three? Is the light coming on yet, Alan? Light was never off from the beginning of this issue, I've never stated it in terms of a specific image or collection surviving, but that given the huge number of photos taken (what did you WAG?) that there will be long term survivors. Further of course, those that are dead in 10 years are dead. Those that are prepared to go 100 years are more likely to go 500 than those that aren't prepared at all. In other parts of this discussion I've raised social reasons that will result in surviving images as well as commercial entities like Corbis and Google playing a role in long term preservation as they move their own data set forward in time (Picasa, Panoramio). While they may not survive as entities, the data likely will under some other organization or trust. Even the Mormons might take on a lot of it as part of their genealogy database. I seem to have to repeat this time and again: the probability of a given image surviving is pretty low; the probability of various images surviving is a certainty. And so it is for film images, however with a low volume of film shooting, today, film images from _today_ are becoming lower probability survivors. In that 1% is an even smaller number who take very good care of their image data and a portion of those who ask themselves, "how do I make these REALLY last a long time." And out of that last bunch is the statistical likelihood of some images surviving. That's all. No guarantee at all that a _specific_ image will survive. But the probability can always be improved. Not without extraordinary effort. I think we're at odds over the following: You (and perhaps stephe) are looking at it from the POV of given, specific images surviving for a long time. I'm looking at it from the POV that some images, though I can't say which, will survive by chance. Yes, we are at odds over the idea that any digital images will survive *by chance* for that length of time. I've seen nor experienced anythiing that supports the idea that this will be the case. If you have some information to the contrary, perhaps you should present it at this point. I've stated it several times and repeated below. The cheapest method that requires no long term plan is to use archival CD/DVD (BluRay?) and to store them benignly. I suggest you do some research on "archival" digital storage media. The writable materials will not survive for even a small fraction of 500 years. Not so. The archival CD/DVD media (usually gold based) have 100 year to 200 year lives when stored in benign conditions. This is predicted based on accelerated life cycle tests of such media v. the common CD/DVD's which use silver or aluminum and which suffer oxidization over the long term - even in well sealed media. Without going into the failures of such tests to predict longevity of materials (I heard many claims since purchasing my first CD recorder Quote source. The source for what I heard? Me. before 1990, and have experienced many failurs of "archival" media What was the archival media? Various removable writable media, including "Gold" CDs, etc. Since my business is affected by the cost of maintaining client data, I always use the best available media. since that time), it appears that your above commentary is conflating replicated media with writable media. Replication and the preservation of replicated materials would be included in my idea of "extraordinary effort", and would not include any of the typical every-day images nor most of the professionally taken still images. I'm solely speaking of the use of archival (gold based) CD/DVD's from reputable disk makers. You have to do your homework to make sure even those are the best ones (sealing of the disk is very important). Only buy disks made in Japan and Taiwan. They quote lives of 100, 200 and 300 years (the more conservative, Verbatim and Memorex quote 100+). This is pure nonsense, and only confirms that you are a victim of the marketing drivel that drives such notions. First of all, there are not many primary manufacturers of writable media. Secondly, you can't determine quality by region, except coincidentally. Thirdly, Verbatim and Memorex are not primary manufacturers of discs, their products are sourced from low cost suppliers, as a result are inconsistent and in my experience are typically unreliable for even a couple of years. There is at least one site that talks about sources of the discs as being important. It is certainly not "nonsense". When you talk about sourced manufacturing I agree. But I'm not talking about pricing the lowest cost CD/DVD's at Wal*Mart either. The reputable gold archive disks (made in Japan or Taiwan) need to be ordered online. At least here. Now that the basis for your opinion is established by comments that reflect a lack of experience and technical knowledge of the issues that affect the longevity of writable materials, I will bow out of this discussion. My technical knowledge is better than most. I have experience with accelerated life cycle testing (for other purposes). The key points for image preservation on CD/DVD (and BluRay at some point) remain non-oxidization, sealing and benign storage. These are the things that the archive disk manufacturers address. I've never come close to claiming that all images can be conserved with certainty, only that a number will certainly survive. -- gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELP PLEASE - APS REWIND BACK TO ZERO WITH NEW FILM | Fred McKenzie | APS Photographic Equipment | 3 | September 4th 04 09:56 PM |
6X8 ROLL FILM BACK FOR 4X5 | Massimiliano Spoto | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 0 | May 20th 04 05:55 AM |