At 07:46 AM 6/30/01 +0100, you wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:19:52 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Well since the film I have from HS is some 30yrs old, and has been =
treated awfully for the most part, and still hasn't shown film-base =
deterioration,
I haven't seen
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a number of C41 films dating back from when I
was yearbook photographer in high school... in the
late 1960s. None of them are showing any significant
signs of deterioration.
And I have some negs from about 1982 where the emulsion has virtually
dissolved
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:31:49 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
While all films today may not be Estar, they are not acetate from what I
understand - may be Mylar or someother plastic base - but I could be
wrong
about that.
You may be right, but I thought all that were not
digital archiving rearchiving as
we can be bothered with.
Regards to all,
Alan T.
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was
Digital Shortcomings)
Tony Sleep wrote:
You may be right, but I thought all that were not Estar were plain old
cellulose acetate, ever since the even more exciting nitrate stock was
phased out.
Yeah, don't you miss that old Nitrate based stuff. now, those were the
good old days! None of this namby-pamby
- Original Message -
From: Alan Tyson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
conclusion as last time we had
At 15:25 29-06-01 -0500, Robert Kehl wrote:
BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
conclusion as last time we had a prolonged archiving
discussion here - we need as much of *both* careful neg
storage *and* systematic digital archiving rearchiving as
we can be
- Original Message -
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
I agree with you here Alan,
with emphasis being on rearchiving
At 19:29 29-06-01 -0500, you wrote:
This discussion has led me to one conclusion that seems inescapable.
Clearly it's important to refresh our media assets every few years to keep
pace with technology. Perhaps the archival method with the greatest
longevity and 'universality' today is a
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered
that
this does not necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for
films from around the 1960s and 70s or before for the most part.
It
laurie wrote:
The problem was also recognized with respect to video tapes. The U.S.
National archives were given video tapes of the various space adventures
in the 1960s and 70s by NASA, which were recorded on acetate bases; when
the Archives opened the sealed cannisters with the
Well, two comments,
1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage
2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
Not to mention, scarey as hell. :-|
--LRA
From: Hersch Nitikman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:25 -0700
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be
factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on
the permanence of the
what you do.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony
Art wrote:
Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
apartments in cities in temperate zones during the summer. Keep it
cool, keep the
, 2001 4:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered
that
this does not necessarily hold true
: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
Well, two comments,
1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage
2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:41
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an
education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits
of CD-R archives vs relying
Lynn Allen wrote:
*Stone* is good (particularly granite, basalt, and combinations of the
two), providing you don't leave them out in the sun, rain, or sandstorms
for more than 10,000 years. ;-)
At one time, Scribes laboriously re-recorded all the World's Wisdom, and
placed it in the
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
. BW
film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.
Oh, you might think so ;) - but see below
Nishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence
Institute, so appears to know
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess
that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R
archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and
slides.
Hersch
At 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33
-0400 Isaac Crawford
life
expires.
BK
- Original Message -
From:
Hersch Nitikman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an
education. I guess
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch
NitikmanSent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has
to be factored into the discussions
23 matches
Mail list logo
