A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 23rd 07, 08:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #2  
Old December 23rd 07, 09:02 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

On Dec 23, 9:07*am, Alan Browne
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...l.html?_r=1&re...


I read about some film that was shoot digitally using a 4Kx2K camera
and was surprised to find out that they did no compression at all.
The storage for the film was in the range of 15TB or so but all the
shooting was more like 50TB, as I recall.

They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they
give if they did even a small bit of compression.

Scott
  #3  
Old December 24th 07, 01:51 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Joseph Kewfi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin

"According to Mr. Shefter, a universal standard for storage technology would
go far toward reducing a problem that would otherwise grow every time the
geniuses who create digital hardware come up with something a little better
than their last bit of wizardry"

"If we allow technological obsolescence to repeat itself, we are tied either
to continuously increasing costs - or worse - the failure to save important
assets."

It isn't rocket science, obviously without a standard for archival storage
of digital images the majority of today's will not be available in coming
decades, this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste
of time and hardware money if you're interested in longevity as I am, if you
need it now and don't care about it being readable in future, shoot digital.
It is what it's designed to be, immediate and disposable.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.



  #4  
Old December 24th 07, 02:18 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste
of time


. . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com
  #5  
Old December 24th 07, 02:36 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,227
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

"Eric Miller" wrote
this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste
of time

. . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it.


Damn straight!

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


  #6  
Old December 24th 07, 12:44 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Joseph Kewfi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

. . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it.

People do things for different reasons. I doubt longevity is high the agenda
of average consumers. It is average consumers that have driven digital
capture to dominate the market. Their priorities are usually more immediate,
cost motivated and less demanding.

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
.. .
this is one of the main reasons why 'shooting digital' is a waste
of time


. . . and, presumably, why no one is doing it.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com



  #7  
Old December 24th 07, 08:18 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Peter Chant[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 203
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

Scott W wrote:

They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they
give if they did even a small bit of compression.


Yes - but compressing video as you capture it on the fly takes a lot of
processing power. Perhaps suitable chipsets or software encoders are not
available for less run of the mill applications - therefore easier to
capture raw.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
  #8  
Old December 24th 07, 09:08 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"

On Dec 24, 9:18*am, Peter Chant
wrote:
Scott W wrote:
They could reduce the storage cost to a fraction of the numbers they
give if they did even a small bit of compression.


Yes - but compressing video as you capture it on the fly takes a lot of
processing power. *Perhaps suitable chipsets or software encoders are not
available for less run of the mill applications - therefore easier to
capture raw.


But for archiving you could compress.

Scott
  #9  
Old December 25th 07, 03:49 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
hickster11
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin

--

I don't see it; for what they pay Tom Cruise to make a movie they could
probably buy Kodak from the Chinese, and problem solved.
Bob Hickey


  #10  
Old December 25th 07, 06:33 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Ric Trexell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default For films (movies), digital costs more to archive than "print"


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ss&oref=slogin
************************************************** **************************
****
I talked about this with my family this weekend as we got together for an
early Christmas. My family has a lot of teenaged girls that are snapping
digital pictures all the time. When I asked them what they do with them to
preserve them, one told me she doesn't do anything other than copy them to
her harddrive. Most she deletes after a few weeks right in the camera.
This is sort of sad in a way because memories are being destroyed. I told
them that I have pictures of their mothers (mainly slides) from 40 years ago
but they don't have digital pictures from 6 months ago. I look for people
to return to film in a few years when they discover they don't have much of
anything past a few years. Ric in Wisconsin.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 Digital Photography 3 December 8th 07 12:37 AM
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 Digital Photography 0 December 3rd 07 07:47 AM
Anyone know who makes "Ultrafine" films? Lew In The Darkroom 9 June 12th 06 01:30 AM
"classic" black and white films [email protected] In The Darkroom 11 April 16th 06 03:54 AM
Help... Sony "Picture Package" does not copy movies without finalizing smilesdl Digital Photography 6 January 23rd 06 06:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.