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 |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
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.-- |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
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.-- |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
problem #1 is that the high end archival media is now being downgraded (and Kodak's gold standard materials may be in the process of being re-spec'd per librarian lists as actual experience suggests archival nature is far less than wildly optimistic claims in real world examples). problem #2 is bit-rot, which is a real issue with running coding formats (like JPEG) where an error can impact a large block of subsequent data and produce non-recoverable file blocks or images. quoting Jim Brick, a Leica photobook author, photo seminar leader, and advanced imaging (AF..) engineer (http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/filmwinsp.html) "CD/DVD's are a chemical change refractive index system when burned. But the chemical reaction deteriorates over time. Chemical bit rot rather than magnetic bit rot. Like five to ten times faster than a silver image deteriorating providing it was fixed and washed reasonably close to properly" endquote: so the code formats are interesting, but largely irrelevant because the medium will have so many rotted bits that many or most files will have large unrecoverable blocks of encoded data. And of course, more than 1/3rd of consumers per FujiFilm UK survey only store their images on their computer hard drive, with NO backups ;-( So unless you are an expert in archival storage issues, and follow all the fine print (and maybe not even then), your media is going to rot away on you in 10 to 15 years or so. We have reported examples of tests of CDROMs where bit errors are already showing up after only a few years of service. So it won't be the lack of info on old file formats, or lack of hardware, but the rotting of the storage media most of us use, and the conditions of less than optimal temp/RH etc. that we store our media and so on. regards bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | 35mm Photo Equipment | 200 | October 6th 04 12:07 AM |
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 |