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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
J wrote:
"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. Yes, I am well aware of those services. There are few that are low cost. I also wonder if there is enough business for anyone to offer that service in the future. Just because something is possible, does not mean some company will do it. Now if it is profitable, then some company might do it. 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? Because it could not be easily read or translated. In other words, the factor is cost of conversion. How many people will bother to convert old formats, especially when they are not even sure what might be on the files. How many people even use a data recovery service, and at what expense? 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. I should have mentioned the cost aspect in my earlier post. If standards are already great, then why do engineers continue changing them . . . but anyway, your basic premise is true, and binary data is binary data. Why did some people get paid so much for data conversion prior to 2000, when it was realized that quite a bit of old data was in formats that were no longer in use. Those old formats were binary as well, but there was so much of it, conversion was not fast, easy, or low cost. Who will pay to convert old files, especially old image files where they cannot know what the images are on them? How much will they pay to find out what those images were? My opinion on this is that few people will convert their old files, and there will not be conversion software automatically available, nor even free downloads of something that will work. 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. Cultural aspects . . . happens all the time. Take a look at the images and words we do have of the past, and you soon realize that they are all small slices of the past. That we can appreciate them easily, shows the simplicity of being able to view (or read) them with little aid of modern technology. 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? The sky, it is falling. Right . . . save all your family photos as JPEGs, and burn them to CD-R. Enjoy them all in twenty years . . . ever try to open a native PhotoShop 2.0 file? Hey, I am not any kind of prophet . . . so if you are comfortable with technology, and the way you are using it, then ignore what I say. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |