How many Smart Cards out there have pictures on them that can't be read?

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever* (much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever* (much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

Digital files will last as long as the media it's written on. Some DVDs
wont last forever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and prints
too if the paper is of the archivable acid free kind, preferably
rag.

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever* (much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

Digital files will last as long as the media it's written on. Some DVDs
wont last forever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

but not forever and there are no backups.

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever* (much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

Digital files will last as long as the media it's written on. Some DVDs
wont last forever.

unlimited perfect copies can be made, so whether any given media fails
or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..

you can't put back what isn't there. you can only fake it.

the point is that raw processing improves, so the raw files of today
will look *better* with future raw processing algorithms.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

but not forever and there are no backups.

Not forever, but there are well preserved captures from the mid 19th
century. Film is backup for prints and vice versa.

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever* (much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

Digital files will last as long as the media it's written on. Some DVDs
wont last forever.

unlimited perfect copies can be made, so whether any given media fails
or not makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..

you can't put back what isn't there. you can only fake it.

It's called restoration and you are using the information that remained
in the media and not false data. Not fake.

the point is that raw processing improves, so the raw files of today
will look *better* with future raw processing algorithms.

I'm not arguing with you on that one. The fact is that with a good scan
I can do lots of things and bring out and adjust details and colours in
captures from decades ago that would be impossible at capture time
without a prolab.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

but not forever and there are no backups.

Not forever, but there are well preserved captures from the mid 19th
century.

they've faded.

Film is backup for prints and vice versa.

prints are a 2nd generation *copy* of a film negative. not a backup,
and a film copy of a print is a 3rd generation (and rather lossy).



not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..

you can't put back what isn't there. you can only fake it.

It's called restoration and you are using the information that remained
in the media and not false data. Not fake.

it's fake if it wasn't in the original.

you're putting back what you *think* was there or what you want to be
there. not what really was there.

the point is that raw processing improves, so the raw files of today
will look *better* with future raw processing algorithms.

I'm not arguing with you on that one. The fact is that with a good scan
I can do lots of things and bring out and adjust details and colours in
captures from decades ago that would be impossible at capture time
without a prolab.

had you shot it with digital you wouldn't need to restore it.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film
and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only
one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies,
assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and
prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

but not forever and there are no backups.

Not forever, but there are well preserved captures from the mid 19th
century.

they've faded.

Film is backup for prints and vice versa.

prints are a 2nd generation *copy* of a film negative. not a backup,
and a film copy of a print is a 3rd generation (and rather lossy).



not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..

you can't put back what isn't there. you can only fake it.

It's called restoration and you are using the information that remained
in the media and not false data. Not fake.

it's fake if it wasn't in the original.

you're putting back what you *think* was there or what you want to be
there. not what really was there.

the point is that raw processing improves, so the raw files of today
will look *better* with future raw processing algorithms.

I'm not arguing with you on that one. The fact is that with a good scan
I can do lots of things and bring out and adjust details and colours in
captures from decades ago that would be impossible at capture time
without a prolab.

had you shot it with digital you wouldn't need to restore it.

Idiot...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 04:30:40 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever*

until it's lost.

Disks like DVDs do degrade over time and lost data can corrupt files to
the point of unrenderable. YMMV of course but it's hard to find a
failsafe solution to put in a box for the grandkids to find. National
Geographic store digital captures as prints in their archives, just in
case of whatever...


(much to the
chagrin of some people). every copy is *identical* to the original and
easily made, with *no* limit as to how many. if fire or theft consumes
one copy, there are others to replace it, without *any* loss. forever.

not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 11:02:48 UTC, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 04:30:40 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film
and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies, assuming
you made some (most people don't).

digital will *never* degrade and will last *forever*

until it's lost.

Disks like DVDs do degrade over time

So do HD's

Well, the best backups are the rolling ones where you rotate the media.
Hard to box thou.


and lost data can corrupt files to
the point of unrenderable. YMMV of course but it's hard to find a
failsafe solution to put in a box for the grandkids to find. National
Geographic store digital captures as prints in their archives, just in
case of whatever...

That makes sense as at least even a degraded print can be seen unlike a
digital image with corrupt data.

I think that it's safe to assume that these prints are of the highest
quality and inspected at least randomly for degradation so that they can
be reprinted. It's a doomsday archive for sure.
--
teleportation kills

On 12/2/2016 4:55 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

Realize the gravity of the longevity of digital images versus film
and
print
which unmolested will last for 100+ years. Maybe 500 years.

nonsense. film starts to fade the moment it's done processing and it
doesn't take too long for it to be noticeable. worse, there is only
one
original copy. lose that and all you have are degraded copies,
assuming
you made some (most people don't).

Properly processed black and white film can last a long time, and
prints
too if the paper is of the archivable non acid free kind, preferably
rag.

but not forever and there are no backups.

Not forever, but there are well preserved captures from the mid 19th
century.

they've faded.

Film is backup for prints and vice versa.

prints are a 2nd generation *copy* of a film negative. not a backup,
and a film copy of a print is a 3rd generation (and rather lossy).



not only that, but as technology progresses, the quality of existing
digital images will *improve* over what exists today.

True. I've completed the first part of my scanning project, colour and
while all colour negs and slides from the 1950-90 were faded to various
extent digital processing can fix a lot. The worst can at least be
desaturated into monochrome. I use Vuescan and scan to DNGs.
Next up is is them monochromes and that's a way bigger task..

you can't put back what isn't there. you can only fake it.

It's called restoration and you are using the information that remained
in the media and not false data. Not fake.

it's fake if it wasn't in the original.

you're putting back what you *think* was there or what you want to be
there. not what really was there.

the point is that raw processing improves, so the raw files of today
will look *better* with future raw processing algorithms.

I'm not arguing with you on that one. The fact is that with a good scan
I can do lots of things and bring out and adjust details and colours in
captures from decades ago that would be impossible at capture time
without a prolab.

had you shot it with digital you wouldn't need to restore it.

Idiot...


Some forget that there is a feeling of awe, when viewing original
DaVinci sketches that doesn't exist when seeing reproductions. (At least
I experienced it.)



--
PeterN