Sad news for film-based photography

wrote in message
...
In message Srk7d.303671$Fg5.280045@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

One way to do it is to make multiple recordings at the same time, and then
reject everything that isn't common to all of the samples. This
presupposes
that the noise will be random, and unlikely to be common to more than one
sample.

I was thinking more along the lines of embedded noise.

WTF is "embedded noise"? Crap in the grooves? What?

"jjs" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
In message Srk7d.303671$Fg5.280045@attbi_s53,
"William Graham" wrote:

One way to do it is to make multiple recordings at the same time, and
then
reject everything that isn't common to all of the samples. This
presupposes
that the noise will be random, and unlikely to be common to more than
one
sample.

I was thinking more along the lines of embedded noise.

WTF is "embedded noise"? Crap in the grooves? What?


I was going to ask that also, but I was afraid of showing my
ignorance.....Thank you for asking for me.......:^)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:31:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Well aware of the 'gold' CD's...

I've never heard that they are guaranteed forever ... in fact that page has no
guarantee or warranty at all ... just claims.

I've never heard of anyone using one over 5 years with 0 errors (or the contrary).

I'd love for it to be true, just haven't seen the evidence (other than their
claim of accelerated life cycle testing).

Cheers,
Alan

It is what the US and Canadian govt have started using for archival
purposes. I don't know exactly what testing was done on them before
being used, but I know that independent testing was done in Canada.

McLeod wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:31:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Well aware of the 'gold' CD's...

I've never heard that they are guaranteed forever ... in fact that page has no
guarantee or warranty at all ... just claims.

I've never heard of anyone using one over 5 years with 0 errors (or the contrary).

I'd love for it to be true, just haven't seen the evidence (other than their
claim of accelerated life cycle testing).

Cheers,
Alan


It is what the US and Canadian govt have started using for archival
purposes. I don't know exactly what testing was done on them before
being used, but I know that independent testing was done in Canada.

Accelerated lifecycle testing is often a valid means of testing but always
leaves some question as to whether it really represents all influences over time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they are much better than the 'usual' CD's, just
not convinced that they are 100 year+...

At the mitsui website there does not appear to be a DVD "Gold" version yet ...
I'd bite at that if there were such a beast...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:16:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

At the mitsui website there does not appear to be a DVD "Gold" version yet ...
I'd bite at that if there were such a beast...

I'll stick with CD's until DVD formats, writers, and discs shake down
properly.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:16:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

At the mitsui website there does not appear to be a DVD "Gold" version yet ...
I'd bite at that if there were such a beast...

I'll stick with CD's until DVD formats, writers, and discs shake down
properly.

McLeod wrote:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:16:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


At the mitsui website there does not appear to be a DVD "Gold" version yet ...
I'd bite at that if there were such a beast...


I'll stick with CD's until DVD formats, writers, and discs shake down
properly.

I haven't committed either, but I do have some CD's that are over 5 years old
now, so rather than reburn the data on CD's I'd rather upgrade... Prob'y by the
new year.

Cheers,
Alan


--
"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
-Richard Avedon
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

posted:
"...
It would be nice if someone made a scanner that scanned the
grooves and
was able to distinguish between intentional grooving and
dust/scratches/warpage/noise and output at least 96KHz
24-bit digital
audio.
...."

Something like a Laser Turntable should be "close enough for
Jazz" ...

http://www.elpj.com/

In message VCC7d.3335$Sl2.2503@trnddc09,
"RSD99" wrote:

posted:
"...
It would be nice if someone made a scanner that scanned the
grooves and
was able to distinguish between intentional grooving and
dust/scratches/warpage/noise and output at least 96KHz
24-bit digital
audio.
..."

Something like a Laser Turntable should be "close enough for
Jazz" ...

Well, we'd have to know exactly what this turntable does. If it is only
reading one value at each physical location, it isn't doing what I said.
I'm talking about scanning the entire surface at a very high resolution,
and making decisions about what is signal and what is vinyl artifact on
the record.
--


John P Sheehy

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Imaging formats change all the time. I would imagine some really early
video
might be entirely unreadable at some point in the near future.

These video formats are analog and require a specific mechanical device to
read. Reproduction of that mechanical device may be difficult. However, if
they are lucky someone digitized it and it exists somewhere. They have
services which do this sort of thing you know.

JPEG is already slated for changes.

So, you can still read GIF files and other "obsolete" types. Why should jpeg
die just because it is changed in the future?

MPEG is also an evolving standard. TIFF is somewhat stable,
though there was a variation that Adobe used once that caused some
problems.

All these engineers trying to do more will continue to evolve file
formats.
Software of the future might not be able to read older files. While
something
on the internet might still be found, even through some like the web
archive
organization, the reality is that usually someone needs to pay to keep
information on any server.

My point is that given the spec, and given typical programming tools you can
read the bits that the file is encoded with. Reading a bitmap or a jpeg is
unlikely to become a lost art. Binary data is here to stay and it is easy to
work with it. It has the advantage that you can read it and duplicate it
exactly. This frees you in principle from relying on obsolete, no longer
readable media - as long as someone wants to keep it, it is easy for them to
do so. Certainly there will be stuff that no one keeps. There always is. The
majority of paperbacks from the 50's, 60's and 70's have all gone into the
trash. No one is crying over them or saying that paper is obsolete. Where
are the mountains of vinyl records that were produced throughout the last
century? 8 track tapes? Prints from instamatic cameras? glass plates? The
libraries at Alexandria? Most everything is in huge landfills now. And
people were happy to put it there.

Obviously some more important information will survive. Family histories
are
another thing, and it would not surprise me to hear of many losses in the
future. What is the incentive to keep things the same as they are
digitally
now?

Gordon Moat

The sky, it is falling.

-J