On 14 February 2015 at 04:32, Christine Aguila christ...@caguila.com wrote:
Hi Team:
Just thought this might be of interest given a recent thread about
compatibility of DNG files on old software versions.
To my mind, more importantly, it makes the case for paper :-)))—print your
John wrote:
The best time to do that is BEFORE they become dead media. There's
usually a period when use of the new media formats overlaps with the
old media formats.
Before my last computer that supported 5.25 floppies died, I copied
the important DATA to 3.5 floppies. Those, in turn,
John wrote:
I don't think that is unique to the digital era in photography.
I've seen instances where family didn't appreciate old photos and
trashed negatives prints that were probably priceless. I've seen it
in my own family where my father gave away most of my grandmother's
photography
On 2/14/2015 11:46 PM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Jostein Øksne wrote:
I think I disagree with your blanket statement that obsolence of either
makes them unrecoverable. If anything, it takes obsolence of both in my
opinion, but in either case it's more a matter of how much you are
willing to pay for
On 2/14/2015 9:55 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Well digital should be but isn't perfect, bad copies can be made due
to equipment error and failing media, among other things. I've seen
enough restores because backups were corrupted and not checked until
needed when it was too late.
I guess the
On 2/14/2015 3:13 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Bruce Walker wrote:
But even relatively modern formats are effectively dead these days.
How many of us could read an 8 inch MDS-80 floppy? A 5.25 CP/M or MS-
DOS floppy? Even finding a PC or Mac with a 3.5 1.44M floppy on it is
non-trivial lately. In
On 2/14/2015 4:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
John wrote:
If I remember correctly from my days running the mini-lab, the Kodak CD
that was available with your processed film prints the images were
standard, low-compression JPEGs that would allow you to print a 4x6 at
300ppi (1200x1800 pixels).
Quoting John sesso...@earthlink.net:
Before my last computer that supported 5.25 floppies died, I copied the
important DATA to 3.5 floppies. Those, in turn, were copied to CD-ROM
before my last computer with a 3.5 drive was replaced (although I have
since then come into possession of an older
On Feb 15, 2015, at 5:00 am, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually own an 8-bit paper tape reader, 110 baud, chunky mechanical
thing with a big motor. The last time I used it to read tapes I cobbled
together a 20mA current loop to RS-232 converter and transferred a bunch of
what was good about film either negatives or slides was the only
hardware you needed to open it was your eyes.
On 2/14/2015 3:13 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Bruce Walker wrote:
But even relatively modern formats are effectively dead these days.
How many of us could read an 8 inch MDS-80 floppy?
You mean those Kodak PictureDisc things? I have a few of those, and found that
ImageMagick can convert them to 16-bit TIFFs. In batches. :-)
Jostein
Den 14. februar 2015 09:13:15 CET, skrev Malcolm Smith
rrve...@virginmedia.com:
Bruce Walker wrote:
But even relatively modern formats are
The obsolescence of either is enough to render your data unrecoverable.
Physical media seems to die out sooner than file formats do simply because
it's generally not too hard to keep a file format reader around in
software. As you found with ImageMagick. Thank goodness for that at least.
I
The obsolescence of either is enough to render your data unrecoverable.
Physical media seems to die out sooner than file formats do simply because
it's generally not too hard to keep a file format reader around in
software. As you found with ImageMagick. Thank goodness for that at least.
I
J C OConnell wrote:
what was good about film either negatives or slides was the only
hardware you needed to open it was your eyes.
True!
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
Jostein Øksne wrote:
You mean those Kodak PictureDisc things? I have a few of those, and
found that ImageMagick can convert them to 16-bit TIFFs. In batches. :-
) Jostein
I've not looked them out for years, but I'm certain that's what they were
called. I think they later offered a CD, rather
On 2/14/2015 10:18 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Jostein Øksne wrote:
You mean those Kodak PictureDisc things? I have a few of those,
and found that ImageMagick can convert them to 16-bit TIFFs. In
batches. :- ) Jostein
I've not looked them out for years, but I'm certain that's what they
were
John wrote:
If I remember correctly from my days running the mini-lab, the Kodak CD
that was available with your processed film prints the images were
standard, low-compression JPEGs that would allow you to print a 4x6 at
300ppi (1200x1800 pixels).
You're thinking of the Kodak Picture CD that
Quoting Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com:
John wrote:
If I remember correctly from my days running the mini-lab, the Kodak CD
that was available with your processed film prints the images were
standard, low-compression JPEGs that would allow you to print a 4x6 at
300ppi (1200x1800
On 2/14/2015 3:43 PM, John wrote:
On 2/14/2015 10:18 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Jostein Øksne wrote:
You mean those Kodak PictureDisc things? I have a few of those,
and found that ImageMagick can convert them to 16-bit TIFFs. In
batches. :- ) Jostein
I've not looked them out for years, but
I think I disagree with your blanket statement that obsolence of either makes
them unrecoverable. If anything, it takes obsolence of both in my opinion, but
in either case it's more a matter of how much you are willing to pay for
recovery.
What really sucked about analog was that the original
Well digital should be but isn't perfect, bad copies can be made due to
equipment error and failing media, among other things. I've seen enough
restores because backups were corrupted and not checked until needed
when it was too late.
On 2/14/2015 7:21 PM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
I think I
Bruce Walker wrote:
But even relatively modern formats are effectively dead these days.
How many of us could read an 8 inch MDS-80 floppy? A 5.25 CP/M or MS-
DOS floppy? Even finding a PC or Mac with a 3.5 1.44M floppy on it is
non-trivial lately. In a pinch I can read 3.5 floppies, but I'd
Jostein Øksne wrote:
I think I disagree with your blanket statement that obsolence of either
makes them unrecoverable. If anything, it takes obsolence of both in my
opinion, but in either case it's more a matter of how much you are
willing to pay for recovery.
What really sucked about
/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: John sesso...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: OT Digital Dark Age and Digital Vellum
On 2/14/2015 10:18 AM, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Jostein Øksne wrote:
You mean those Kodak PictureDisc things? I have a few of those,
and found that ImageMagick can convert
Recent motherboards don't even have floppy controllers built onto them
and no one makes a PCI anything floppy controller add in board, so 5 1/4
floppys are dead unless you happen to have an older machine, (I have one
for running my film scanner), you can still buy 3 1/2 inch USB floppy
drives,
I saw a bit of a convo between two Facebook connections with this with
one disbelieving that this could be a problem. Someone, somewhere can
read your old file formats, he stated confidently.
I'm tempted to show him some 1 paper tape and ask him if he knows
anyone who can still read that.
But
The compatibility of DNG across generations of processing software is akin to
negative management. Making prints is at the other end of the workflow, these
are your finished, rendered works.
I started a two prints a week project this year. That is, I am printing two
of my finished photos per
I expect you'll see one as you're turing around, Bob.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote:
Somebody ought to invent a Universal Machine!
On 13 Feb 2015, at 19:47, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Recent motherboards don't even have floppy
I think you're confusing the media with the message (DATA).
IF the DATA on those old disks was important you should/would have
backed it up onto newer media translated it into new formats.
My old Quattro Pro spreadsheets are long gone, but before I left them
behind, I moved the information
Somebody ought to invent a Universal Machine!
On 13 Feb 2015, at 19:47, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
Recent motherboards don't even have floppy controllers built onto them and no
one makes a PCI anything floppy controller add in board, so 5 1/4 floppys are
dead unless
I'm fairly confident that file formats like JPEG TIFF will be readable
in the future, for at least as long as archival prints can be expected
to last. The media they're saved on might change, but the files will
last as long as someone remembers to transfer them to newer forms of
media when they
I think you should differentiate between media obsolence and file format
obsolence.
Jostein
Den 13. februar 2015 20:34:02 CET, skrev P.J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com:
Recent motherboards don't even have floppy controllers built onto them
and no one makes a PCI anything floppy
32 matches
Mail list logo
