Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Well, we're getting really off topic here, but if you have any knowledge how Corbis operates with its photographers (which is a Bill Gates company) you would know that he is not in it for the fun, philosophy, or love of the art. And as to the limited time... all that was needed was more scanners and scanner operators. Rather than canning the scanning process, they could have speed it up. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: Arthur writes: Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images ... It sounds like you don't know Gates at all. If he just wanted to make lots of money, buying something like a deteriorating archive of images would be a really poor way to do it. Besides, he already has more money than he could ever spend, so why would he want to waste any of his time making more? His main limitation these days, as he has pointed out himself, is limited _time_, not limited money. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. They would be disintegrating just as fast if he didn't own them.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
At 06:07 19-08-01 +0200, Thys wrote: - Original Message - From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the basis of their name as I've had beefs with Nikon in the past. A few years ago I ditched my Nikon cameras and lenses and replaced them with a couple of Canon EOS1n's and Canon lenses and never looked back. Names don't impress me. Only performance matters. I've never seen a single post on this I haven't used it yet, but will get my hands on one soon, since a friend of mine bought one. I don't think the issue to me is that it is not a good scanner, but whether it is worth paying almost double to some very capable machines that the competition is offering. I agree that's a valid issue. It would all depend on how much you needed Nikon's ICE^3 features and how well you felt they were implemented as opposed to Vuescan, for example, on a competitive scanner. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems crazy to pay $900 for a 2800dpi (Nikon IV) scanner when there are 4000dpi units available for the same or less that compares favourably with Nikon's expensive LS4000. There is much more to a scanner than just a dpi figure. True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually better than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people buy the name more than anything else. Regards Thys - Thys van der Merwe Portfolio of African Images: http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis ---
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Thys [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 12:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems crazy to pay $900 for a 2800dpi (Nikon IV) scanner when there are 4000dpi units available for the same or less that compares favourably with Nikon's expensive LS4000. There is much more to a scanner than just a dpi figure. True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually better than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people buy the name more than anything else. Regards Thys I bought my Nikon LS-4000 because of it's superior film handling capabilities. I fail to understand how this feature can be continually overlooked in a day and age where everyone in the world (at least on this forum) seems to be pressed for time. I don't care who made them or what brand name is on them, the Nikon strip and roll film adapters are hassle-free time savers. What is your time worth to you? to your loved ones? Bob Kehl (who only had time to write this message because he is using a hassle-free film scanner)
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually better than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people buy the name more than anything else. Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the basis of their name as I've had beefs with Nikon in the past. A few years ago I ditched my Nikon cameras and lenses and replaced them with a couple of Canon EOS1n's and Canon lenses and never looked back. Names don't impress me. Only performance matters. I've never seen a single post on this list by anyone who bought a Nikon scanner simply for its nameplate. Its competitors have excellent quality also but if you need ICE^3, like the Nikon's film handling and modularity and their software interface then it's worth the bucks. I bought my Nikon LS-4000 because of it's superior film handling capabilities. I fail to understand how this feature can be continually overlooked in a day and age where everyone in the world (at least on this forum) seems to be pressed for time. I don't care who made them or what brand name is on them, the Nikon strip and roll film adapters are hassle-free time savers. What is your time worth to you? to your loved ones? If it had Mickey Mouse on its nameplate and performed as good as it does I'd still have bought one. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. ~Joseph Campbell
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the basis of their name as I've had beefs with Nikon in the past. A few years ago I ditched my Nikon cameras and lenses and replaced them with a couple of Canon EOS1n's and Canon lenses and never looked back. Names don't impress me. Only performance matters. I've never seen a single post on this I haven't used it yet, but will get my hands on one soon, since a friend of mine bought one. I don't think the issue to me is that it is not a good scanner, but whether it is worth paying almost double to some very capable machines that the competition is offering. Regards Thys - Thys van der Merwe Portfolio of African Images: http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis ---
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Dale wrote: I want to scan maybe ten slides a month. My main purpose will be to publish the digitized photographs as attachments to e-mails or simply file them one place or another in cyberspace. Acer Scanwit (either with or without IR) is definitely worth looking at. Some flatbeds have dedicated transparency attachments, but I couldn't recommend one--if you're using M6's, you might be disappointed with the quality of flatbed-scanned slides (and maybe with the Scanwit, too, but it does a pretty decent job on sharp slides). Best regards--LRA From: Dale R. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:15:48 -0700 Got question. I use a couple Leica M6 manual 35mm rangefinder cameras to take color and black and white slides. I use ISO/200 Kodachome and SCALA films that I buy along with mailers from BH in New York. My computer is 1.5 year old, Windows 98, 450Mz PIII, 256M RAM, and lots of free hard drive space. I want to scan maybe ten slides a month. My main purpose will be to publish the digitized photographs as attachments to e-mails or simply file them one place or another in cyberspace. What do you folks think of this scanner and price for my purposes. Should I add a USB port to my computer? Thanks for the advice.Dale http://www.bhphotovideo.com Home Digital Photography Scanners Scanners Accessories Scanners Film Scanners Canon Canoscan FS-2710 2720 dpi 35mm/APS Film Scanner Mfg Catalog # C572011 BH Catalog # CA2710 Our Price: $399.95 Availability: In Stock --- $ [EMAIL PROTECTED]Seattle, Washington USA $ _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Karl Schulmeisters wrote: So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). From what I've read, Corbis actually throwing up their hands and accepting defeat. The vast majority of their Betteman Archive is degrading so rapidly that they said they would be unable to save it before it disintegrated. Rather than increase the number of people doing scanning, they decided to move the majority of the collection underground in an abandoned limestone mine, and hope this slows the process (or they simply want the collection out of the mind of the public in general).. Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images , and now don't care a great deal about that's left, in spite of it being an international treasure. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Art
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Arthur writes: Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images ... It sounds like you don't know Gates at all. If he just wanted to make lots of money, buying something like a deteriorating archive of images would be a really poor way to do it. Besides, he already has more money than he could ever spend, so why would he want to waste any of his time making more? His main limitation these days, as he has pointed out himself, is limited _time_, not limited money. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. They would be disintegrating just as fast if he didn't own them.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Art wrote: Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Which proves conclusively that even Money doesn't solve problems--unless, of course, you *use* it!!! ]:( Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:26:22 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters wrote: So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). From what I've read, Corbis actually throwing up their hands and accepting defeat. The vast majority of their Betteman Archive is degrading so rapidly that they said they would be unable to save it before it disintegrated. Rather than increase the number of people doing scanning, they decided to move the majority of the collection underground in an abandoned limestone mine, and hope this slows the process (or they simply want the collection out of the mind of the public in general).. Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images , and now don't care a great deal about that's left, in spite of it being an international treasure. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Art _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
As I understand it, the Betteman archive as been moved into conditioned storage, but the digitization still goes on (truth in advertising - I worked for Corbis when they were setting up their first scanning lab - but I no longer am in contact with them). I would suggest that the collapse of the dotCom economy has a lot to do with the rate at which ALL archives are being scanned. As for some annual maintenance of our personal archives - heck I have a tough enough time finding enough time to get stuff organized and filed the first time (hence my question about image management software) - much less spending a couple of days a year updating archives. Stuff has to go archival the first time, and it has to be pretty much hands off unless I have a need to use it. - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Art wrote: Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Which proves conclusively that even Money doesn't solve problems--unless, of course, you *use* it!!! ]:( Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:26:22 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters wrote: So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). From what I've read, Corbis actually throwing up their hands and accepting defeat. The vast majority of their Betteman Archive is degrading so rapidly that they said they would be unable to save it before it disintegrated. Rather than increase the number of people doing scanning, they decided to move the majority of the collection underground in an abandoned limestone mine, and hope this slows the process (or they simply want the collection out of the mind of the public in general).. Knowing Gates, it is all a money decision and they likely already scanned the best (most sellable) images , and now don't care a great deal about that's left, in spite of it being an international treasure. Gates also owns several other collections from Europe, which unfortunately are also disintegrating. Art _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Got question. I use a couple Leica M6 manual 35mm rangefinder cameras to take color and black and white slides. I use ISO/200 Kodachome and SCALA films that I buy along with mailers from BH in New York. My computer is 1.5 year old, Windows 98, 450Mz PIII, 256M RAM, and lots of free hard drive space. I want to scan maybe ten slides a month. My main purpose will be to publish the digitized photographs as attachments to e-mails or simply file them one place or another in cyberspace. What do you folks think of this scanner and price for my purposes. Should I add a USB port to my computer? Thanks for the advice.Dale http://www.bhphotovideo.com Home Digital Photography Scanners Scanners Accessories Scanners Film Scanners Canon Canoscan FS-2710 2720 dpi 35mm/APS Film Scanner Mfg Catalog # C572011 BH Catalog # CA2710 Our Price: $399.95 Availability: In Stock --- $ [EMAIL PROTECTED]Seattle, Washington USA $
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some things I disagree with. I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit. At the time of discovery I worked for the IT department and watched the furious scramble to comply with the subpoenas issued for the backed up data. They had been using stuff that was 'industry standard', but within less than 10 years, they had difficulty finding a combination of a) reader b) computer c) operating system d) device driver that would let them extract the data, AND communicate it to a printer or other digital data system Recently I resurrected (or tried to ) an old Win 95 machine (5-8yrs old). Even though nothing had been done to it, other than move the boxes from one house to the other, it would not boot. I got it to boot using Linux, but that of course meant reformatting the boot drive, and since it no longer is the original OS, the other device drivers may or maynot work (one hard drive just would not spin up and the floppy drive was so out of alignment it would not read any floppies). So unless you want to become an electronics repair technician this isn't a viable alternative. And this is the problem with MOD CDROMs are susceptible to 'bit rot' - what happens is that exposure to any sort of light results in degradation of the plastic protective coating. The more use, the more the damage. So even if there are no scratches, that coating can, and does, become optically opaque (I suspect that atmospheric oxidation does this as well). Some studies have shown that as little as 5 years of sitting in an optical jukebox can cause enough bit-rot that stored source code will not compile without errors. I haven't seen studies on CDRs and CDRWs but I suspect they are more vulnerable to this. The same 'fogging' applies to DVDs of all forms (though perhaps the plastic formulations have improved). Removable IDEs have the problem that they are fragile, and the docking bays may or may not be supported by the OS flavour (yes in theory IDE is IDE, but it doesn't always work out that way). So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). - Original Message - From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Karl, Your words are well taken. I would say that your solution may be the best for a no touch archive. My personal preference is to be have an actively maintained archive. I am content to be the computer technician (or at least have an archive compatible machine maintained for use) and to take an active stance in maintaining my archives. With this position being accepted, I like IDE removable drives best, because I can put them on line and refresh them much more quickly. Yes, they are more fragile. Therefore redundancy may be quite worthwhile. The question I would put forth (no answers required) is this: If our archives are valuable and a little annual effort can keep them secure, or more secure, why opt for a hands off archive? Best Regards Bob Kehl PS. I have two of two original 80486 PC's originally running windows 3.1 (yuck) and upgraded to Windows 95. They have been out of use for about two years and moved from house to house. I fired one up the other day. It booted and logged onto the network with no problem. - Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:31 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some things I disagree with. I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit. At the time of discovery I worked for the IT department and watched the furious scramble to comply with the subpoenas issued for the backed up data. They had been using stuff that was 'industry standard', but within less than 10 years, they had difficulty finding a combination of a) reader b) computer c) operating system d) device driver that would let them extract the data, AND communicate it to a printer or other digital data system Recently I resurrected (or tried to ) an old Win 95 machine (5-8yrs old). Even though nothing had been done to it, other than move the boxes from one house to the other, it would not boot. I got it to boot using Linux, but that of course meant reformatting the boot drive, and since it no longer is the original OS, the other device drivers may or maynot work (one hard drive just would not spin up and the floppy drive was so out of alignment it would not read any floppies). So unless you want to become an electronics repair technician this isn't a viable alternative. And this is the problem with MOD CDROMs are susceptible to 'bit rot' - what happens is that exposure to any sort of light results in degradation of the plastic protective coating. The more use, the more the damage. So even if there are no scratches, that coating can, and does, become optically opaque (I suspect that atmospheric oxidation does this as well). Some studies have shown that as little as 5 years of sitting in an optical jukebox can cause enough bit-rot that stored source code will not compile without errors. I haven't seen studies on CDRs and CDRWs but I suspect they are more vulnerable to this. The same 'fogging' applies to DVDs of all forms (though perhaps the plastic formulations have improved). Removable IDEs have the problem that they are fragile, and the docking bays may or may not be supported by the OS flavour (yes in theory IDE is IDE, but it doesn't always work out that way). So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original negs in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the Betteman archive). - Original Message - From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? My long and detailed comments are below. BK Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Andrew. This was a subject of intense discussion on this list about a year ago last spring. From those threads I concluded that the gold dye CDR's were the most stable. As I understand it the patents for the gold dye is or was owned by Mitsui and I have used Mitsui gold CDR's exclusively since a year ago last May. Kodak also makes CDR's using the gold dye (presumably under licience) (or at least they did and I believe they are equally well regarded). For a source, I use Cascade Media ww.( cascademedia.net/cgi-bin/cascade/cdr ). The last box I bought cost me $32.50 for a box of 25. So far so good - no problem. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Thanks! Andrew Robinson Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Ron Carlson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:33:00 -0700 This was a subject of intense discussion on this list about a year ago last spring. And here's a link to tell you everything everyone needs to know about CD-R http://www.macintouch.com/cdrfailure.html -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:19:34 -0700 Winsor Crosby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. Oh no it isn't! :) Do a web search on articles by Douglas Nishimura of the Institute of Image Permanance. EG http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an12/an12-5/an12-507.html There's a scarier paper on film base deterioration which I have posted here before now. After ~20yrs, non-Estar base films can self-destruct. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
We appreciate the importance of leaving a Rosetta Stone though. If you really want to be understood by an archeologist in a geologically far future, your stony time capsule needs some Latin or Greek :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hersch Nitikman) wrote: --=_8182482==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm --=_8182482==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii html font size=3I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. brbr At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote:br blockquote type=cite class=cite citeIn lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;, Lynn Allen wrote:brbr gt; gt;Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper asbr gt; gt;barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, br gt; gt;if suitably stored.br gt; br gt; That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably br gt; all year. :-)br gt; br gt; If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you br gt; could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually br gt; turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-)br gt;br Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes br actually mean!brbr Brian Rumary, Englandbrbr a href=http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm; eudora=autourlhttp://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm/ a/font/blockquotebr /html --=_8182482==_.ALT--
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hersch wrote: I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. So then, we seem to have the additional problem of also keeping Etruscan scribes alive for 2-3000 years (or perhaps their counterparts). Formidable! ;-) --LRA Lynn Allen wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:26:05 + Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) Although a joke, it has actually been seriously proposed and developed as as a long-term archival medium for data - not as barcodes, but dots printed on paper. Granite is bonkers of course. I get enough grief for 'computer mess' from my wife as it is :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Thanks for the suggestion, Derek. However, the dominance of Latin and Greek as unioversal education seems to be waning... g Hersch At 04:30 AM 08/09/2001, you wrote: We appreciate the importance of leaving a Rosetta Stone though. If you really want to be understood by an archeologist in a geologically far future, your stony time capsule needs some Latin or Greek :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hersch Nitikman) wrote: --=_8182482==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm --=_8182482==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii html font size=3I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. brbr At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote:br blockquote type=cite class=cite citeIn lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;, Lynn Allen wrote:brbr gt; gt;Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper asbr gt; gt;barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, br gt; gt;if suitably stored.br gt; br gt; That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably br gt; all year. :-)br gt; br gt; If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you br gt; could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually br gt; turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-)br gt;br Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes br actually mean!brbr Brian Rumary, Englandbrbr a href="http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm" eudora=autourlhttp://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm/ a/font/blockquotebr /html --=_8182482==_.ALT--
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 22:52:18 +0100 B.Rumary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Reminds me of a sci-fi novel I read years ago called 'A canticle for Leibowitz'. It's post-apocalypse, a devout religious order based on a fragment of holy script from before the great destruction. It's actually a shopping list for stuff from a deli... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 21:04:49 -0500 Andrew Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Kodak Gold, though their new Silver+Gold seem likely to be as good. However I have never yet had a read problem with any CDR I've burned on any named-brand CDR. Of course the oldest are only ~5yrs old. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to 14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data! AFAICT, there's no clear-cut winner for storage--maybe the answer is to but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I agree with Lynn that there are no clearcut winners. However, I am willing to hedge my bets and say that the broadest acceptable standard is likely to win. To this end, since I am not in a rush, I am willing to wait a few months until the DVD+RW format hits the market, read the reviews, then make an informed buying decision. For more on DVD+RW, see the following sites: http://www.dvdrw.com/ http://www.sony.co.jp/en/Products/DataMedia/products/DVD_plusRW/index.html I believe the DVD-R, DVD-RW will be the winner. Reasons: - The DVD-RAM used to be with Mac, but now it's the DVD-R. - DVD+RW is from Sony Philips, but seems Betamax II, even Sony is now incorporating CD-R/RW DVD-R/RW real SuperDrive in their top line of Vaio. (Maybe only in Japan now) - Sony is shipping PCVA-DRW1 external 1394 real SuperDrive that is CD-R/RW and DVD-R/RW in one. (Maybe only in Japan now) - Apple Sony are HeavyWeights. For 120 film at 4000dpi @48bit, you have to select one the DVD-???, so help please: The said Sony PCVA-DRW1 is arround USD600 in Japan but not sure. Before I get one, does someone happen to know if there is any 3rd party software driver for it both on Mac Win so I can have such real SuperDrive for both my platforms? According to Sony it only supports Sony VAIO pcs. BTO your Mac G4, get the Sony, buy the software, you have two SuperDrive for the price of one (and the Mac's don't do DVD-RW), I believe many have both Mac Win on the list. That seems to be the solution for me now. JM Shen
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Andrew wrote: What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Kodak and Sony seem to be leading the pack. I've heard mixed reviews about Verbatim, and while I use them for CD-RW, I'm hesitant to commit archive stuff to them. I've had zero trouble with Kodak, but then the discs are only a year old ATPT--not an iron-clad test. :-| Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Sleep wrote: Etched on titanium is probably worth a few aeons, at much higher cost. I understand that someone is working on a method of storing data on titanium disks. However they don't store it in true digital format. They etch a microscopic image of the actual document onto the disk, using a laser; rather in the way a laser prints on paper. Basically is a form of microfilming, but in an even smaller size. The advantage is that it can be read with an electron microscope, even if all knowledge of the software and codes are loss. That is just as well, as they expect it to have a life of up to 1m years! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
I believe that Etruscan writings in Tuscany, approximately 2-3000 years old have still not been deciphered. At 02:52 PM 08/08/2001, you wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lynn Allen wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Of course this assumes that anyone will still remember what the barcodes actually mean! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Sorry to be late chiming in, but a few options I haven't seen anyone recommend are commercial digital archiving, or commercial media storage. If you have your images in digital form, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find a data storage company to archive it for you under controlled conditions, with multiple site backups. The other option might make more sense to someone like me, who lives in a big media city (Los Angeles). Quite literally a stone's throw from my front door is a media storage warehouse, kind of like those storage lockers one rents to stash old junk, but this place specializes in storing recorded media (film, tape, paper, etc.) under temperature and humidity controlled conditions. Anyways, it seems like these options make sense for anyone who has valuable storage needs, either electronic or originals (or for that matter, electronic originals). Leave the detail of media safety to professionals. Just a thought. Pat - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin are all so tentative in terms of which will become standardized, that it is probably a lot safer to use CD-R. Art Mark Edmonds wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Mark _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin are all so tentative in terms of which will become standardized, that it is probably a lot safer to use CD-R. Art Mark Edmonds wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Excellent post, Bob. I think you covered the bases completely. :-) Best regards--Lynn Allen From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:39:51 -0500 My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently the cheapest format for long term storage. If your storage needs can be met with CD-R it is probably your best low maintenance choice, as long as you can afford the time involved with burning CD's. And you be sure to keep a CD drive or two available when their popularity ceases, if ever. DVD-RAM, although currenty more expensive, provides more storage per disk. If you need vast quantities of storage (for 4000dpi 8/16 bit TIF files perhaps) this is a very viable low maintenance choice. This is also somewhat time consuming, as writing DVD-RAM is painfully slow. You will also want to be sure to keep your particular format drives available should they ever be discontinued in the future. Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free, high speed, high volume storage. Like DVD it is getting less and less expensive but is not for the faint of wallet. : ) For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I remember not that long ago (for some of us) paying
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Richard wrote: I archive all my critical stuff (scans and work) onto external 30GIG HD's. At around £90 a unit I don¹t think you can beat them for reliability and speed. An excellent idea, but it needs mentioning that you have to keep magnetic media far away from other magnets--a radio speaker (a most common degausing source) can wreak havok with tape or magnetic disc alike, for example. We won't go into the effects of an atomic airburst, since that wouldn't leave many people who actually care. :-o Best regards--LRA From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:29:10 +0100 Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. I'm unfamiliar with Iomega's optical drives. I know they make mainly magnetic drives and rebadge some CD-R drives. DVD RAM and it's kin are all so tentative in terms of which will become standardized, that it is probably a lot safer to use CD-R. I archive all my critical stuff (scans and work) onto external 30GIG HD's. At around £90 a unit I don¹t think you can beat them for reliability and speed. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ / _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Bob! I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. There are various MOD standards and some of them a older than CDR. All over the world MOD jukeboxes have been used and are still used to store and archive digital data. MODs are definitely more reliably than CDRs because the data is stored in a complete different way. On a CDR the data is stored by changing the optical characteristics of an organic dye. This dye will grow old an fade out some how just like film. On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. cu Flo
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:52:31 +0200 Florian Rist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I totally agree, I suppose the best long term back up media are MODs. But the continuing existence of suitable drives is the problem there. Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. Etched on titanium is probably worth a few aeons, at much higher cost. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Flo wrote: On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. Cautionary note: I have a (ferro)magnetic tape cast-recording of Chicago that somehow got too close to a degausing agent (probably a radio speaker). All the tape that was exposed (that part between one roller and the next, not covered by plastic) is missing any resemblence to music. Fortunately, I can sing, hum, or whistle my way through Chicago to cover the lost music--but I somehow doubt that I could do the same with lost photo-data. Any questions? Best regards--LRA From: Florian Rist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:20:06 +0200 Hi Bob! I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. There are various MOD standards and some of them a older than CDR. All over the world MOD jukeboxes have been used and are still used to store and archive digital data. MODs are definitely more reliably than CDRs because the data is stored in a complete different way. On a CDR the data is stored by changing the optical characteristics of an organic dye. This dye will grow old an fade out some how just like film. On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. cu Flo _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:05 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Not to be a smart @ss, but how about film? I don't know that any of the current storage media will either be around or will survive 20 plus years from now. Also, not wishing to be a smart @ss, how many people still have record players ? It's 17 years (I think) since CD first arrived and I suspect I would have to go to London to buy new vynyl. They isn't an awful lot available when you get there either. Being a nation of Audio freaks there are still quite a few specialist retailers who will sell you a deck, but the numbers are dwindling. I suspect film use will be minimal in 20 years. You will still be able to get a scanner so do I think film is a good backup for failed CDs. Scanners in 20 years may in fact get more off the film despite some deterioration. What we all need to keep in mind is whatever we use to archive our digital files is that we need to check the data periodically and transfer to new technologies as these come available AND keep separate backup systems. I am using 2 different brands of CDs with a copy on each one in Sussex one in Yorkshire (250 miles away - although separate buildings should generally be sufficient). I also have the slides to fall back on. I haven't as yet checked the CD's since recording but every few years you should check they are OK. Hopefully any problems discovered early can be recovered from the other copy, using a better reader or by a specialist company. Your data should be stored in as controlled an environment as you can reasonably manage. Mine are in the middle of the house under the stairs where there is least change in temperature and indeed air in general. There are no nearby electrical or magnetic equipment of any kind. As technology becomes obsolete you should transfer to new formats and media. This is usually not as painful as it sounds as the new technology is usually much cheaper, faster and has much greater capacity. Steve
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Rob wrote: Presumably you meant 14GB. :) Funny I was just reading about DVD-RAM and DVD-RW last night and they were only talking a max of 4.7GB per side. Yes, you're right as usual, Rob. It was a case of Numbers Overload for me. Too many numbers in the same PC World article, none of which I could relate to. :-) One thing in the article I didn't mention--which is significant, at this stage of the DVD game--is that there's questionable compatibility beween various DVD burners; stuff written on one can't necessarily be read by another. This would indicate that DVD archiving isn't yet ready for Prime Time. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? - follow up
First off, my thanks for all the replies and the interesting view points. I was hoping there might be some de-facto standard out there but obviously not! I'd just like to answer some suggestions: 1. Use Film Yes, fine if your film was developed properly in the first place but I have some negatives going back 30 years which have decayed to being next to useless. Also, when I have spent many hours digitally restoring a scan of a badly kept negative, I don't want to lose that work in a hurry! 2. Why is MO more stable than CDR? I don't have any clear cut evidence here except - a: I have heard many horror stories about CDRs becoming unusable over a relatively short period of time (2 or 3 years for example) and having had a fair share of duff burns, I'm not prepared to take the chance unless someone can assure me that long term reliability of CDR is an urban myth. CDR of course does have the huge benefit of being a universal medium and it will take a lot to kill it off. We'll probably be still using them in 10 years time just as we are still using the 3.5 floppy. I'd use CDR if I was 99% confident the discs would last. b: Companies like HP market their MO devices for archival purposes, quoting I think, 50 years media life span. Problem is, they are hideously expensive. 3. Removable hard disk I must admit, this idea looks like the most cost effective solution but hard disks are still vulnerable. Modern drives might be quite tough in terms of impact resistance and other matters but I'm afraid, I hark back to the generation when hard disks were so delicate that if you so much as blew on one, you took out half the sectors. So, having weighed everything up, I think I'll wait until DVD-RW gains some market penetration and see how that looks or failing that, go for removable hard drives and replace them every 5 years or so to keep them compatible with the current standards. It's not ideal but makes more sense than putting your faith in the long term future of a medium which could well be obsolete after a short period of time - or your hardware breaks and you can't get it mended. Thanks again for all the advice - I'm not going to be taking some grope in the dark by buying a MO or DVD-RAM drive in the near future! Mark
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi Lynn! On a MOD the data is stored by changing the magnetic orientation of a ferro magnetic meterial. This will not fade. To change it very high temperatures and high magnetic fields are needed. Cautionary note: I have a (ferro)magnetic tape cast-recording of Chicago that somehow got too close to a degausing agent (probably a radio speaker). All the tape that was exposed (that part between one roller and the next, not covered by plastic) is missing any resemblence to music. Fortunately, I can sing, hum, or whistle my way through Chicago to cover the lost music--but I somehow doubt that I could do the same with lost photo-data. Any questions? Well, you cant compare the to media. It's true both use magnetic effects to store information, but to somewhat different physical effects are uses. I case of the audio the tape recording (or floppy disks) small iron particles are embedded in a non ferromagnetic material. During a recording these ferromagnetic particles are magnetised and the information is stored by modulating the strength of magnetism. The problem is even a relatively low magnetic field can change the this and harm, destroy the data. On a MO(D) media information is stored in a different way: The information is stored by changing the magnetic polarisation of a media, not by modulating the strength of a magnetic field. To change the magnetic polarisation of a pooper media you'll either need extremely strong magnetic fields (no change to reach them by using anything your can usually find at home) or very high temperatures above to the Curie temperature of the material (a few hundred degrees Celsius). Information is written to the MO media by applying a strong magnetic field and heating up a small area on the disk by using a strong laser beam. A small amount of material heats up, the magnetic orientation changes, as the material cools down and the magnetic polarisation freezes. To read out the information again a low energetic laser is used. There are special materials that change there optical specification according to there magnetic polarisation. So, the info is save on MO media, but not on your audio tape. :-) I hope my poor English is good enough to explain these things. Unfortunately my knowledge of the physics behind it isn't very good either. I uses to know these things, when I was studying math and physics a few years back. No that I changed to architecture I tend to forget these things ... cu Flo PS: Hey, isnt any one interested into my nice Maxoptix SCSI MOD T5-2600?
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
There was an interesting article in Scientific American magazine six or eight years ago about the problems of storing digital data. They cited, as I remember, three challenges: The permanence of the storage medium, the availability of media-reading hardware, and the availability of software to interpret the digital files. They used the example of someone a century from now finding a CD in an old trunk in the attic with the attached note: Enclosed is the secret to finding the fortune I buried. Even if you could resurrect a CD reader, there would be the problem of deciphering that long string of 1's and 0's. For a number of years, my printing company produced a catalog for a funeral supply business. The main catalog was printed every five years or so, and about half the pages picked-up from the previous catalog (with changes), and about half were new. Over the period from the mid-60's to the late-80's we used the following composition systems, all after the second one incompatible with the previous systems: 1. Letterpress-printed hot-metal forms (before my time) 2. Repro-proofed hot-metal forms photographed and printed offset. 3. Art-boards created by a paper-tape-driven VIP phototypesetter. 4. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium driven Quadex system. (What did it use, 8 disks?) 5. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium-driven Linotype 202 6. Art-boards created by a Lino 300 or 330 using another completely different programming language. About that time we lost the job to another printer, so we didn't have to go through the problem of converting digital files from whatever version of whatever program stored on whatever medium that was popular five years previously. So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have little use for a man who can't spell a word but one way.---Mark Twain
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as layers in PhotoShop? Don't astronomers do that sort of thing all the time? Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use separations for Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images. However, I was taken to task on that on the grounds that reproducing color images from separations is quite expensive. I have no reason to doubt that iut is inmappropriate as a general archive, just to be used for the irreplaceable family treasures. Hersch At 10:19 AM 08/07/2001, you wrote: Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
A good question. I can believe people will not be using Tiff files any more in 10 years. However, for longer than that you can probably expect that there will be shareware (and commercial) conversion programs to translate Tiff files to Jpeg5 format, or whatever. You just have to go with the flow... Hersch At 01:09 PM 08/07/2001, you wrote: There was an interesting article in Scientific American magazine six or eight years ago about the problems of storing digital data. They cited, as I remember, three challenges: The permanence of the storage medium, the availability of media-reading hardware, and the availability of software to interpret the digital files. They used the example of someone a century from now finding a CD in an old trunk in the attic with the attached note: Enclosed is the secret to finding the fortune I buried. Even if you could resurrect a CD reader, there would be the problem of deciphering that long string of 1's and 0's. For a number of years, my printing company produced a catalog for a funeral supply business. The main catalog was printed every five years or so, and about half the pages picked-up from the previous catalog (with changes), and about half were new. Over the period from the mid-60's to the late-80's we used the following composition systems, all after the second one incompatible with the previous systems: 1. Letterpress-printed hot-metal forms (before my time) 2. Repro-proofed hot-metal forms photographed and printed offset. 3. Art-boards created by a paper-tape-driven VIP phototypesetter. 4. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium driven Quadex system. (What did it use, 8 disks?) 5. Art-boards created by a magnetic-medium-driven Linotype 202 6. Art-boards created by a Lino 300 or 330 using another completely different programming language. About that time we lost the job to another printer, so we didn't have to go through the problem of converting digital files from whatever version of whatever program stored on whatever medium that was popular five years previously. So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have little use for a man who can't spell a word but one way.---Mark Twain
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Before CD-R came along, I was advocating people use separations for Wedding Photos, and other similarly precious images. However, I was taken to task on that on the grounds that reproducing color images from separations is quite expensive. I have no reason to doubt that iut is inmappropriate as a general archive, just to be used for the irreplaceable family treasures. Hersch At 10:19 AM 08/07/2001, you wrote: Hersch wrote: He [Mark] wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. It needs to be mentioned that not all 20-year-old film is equal (we all know the principles, but we don't often encounter the examples head-to-head). :-) If film is stored in a cool, dark, humidity-controled environment, its lifetime is very good over a period of 100-years or so--providing that the film base and chemicals were archiveable in the first place (and not all were). Some of my mother's slides are 52 years old--only a few of them are degraded: some by obvious light exposure, some by dust, a very few just faded (poor dyes or development). But both Hersch and Maris are right. Film is stable, and so are digital numbers; the problem being that *nothing* is really permanent, so continuous and redundant archiving, at this point in time, is the safest way to approach this problem. Best regards--LRA It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach, California
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Preston Earle After a certain level of usage it is unlikely that software formats and even (non-obscure) hardware readers will be impossible to find. There is too much information stored on the internet and elsewhere in standard formats to make it likely that these will become unreadable, at least barring the effects of a major depression, nuclear war, or the odd asteroid hit. People often to refer to scientific data which has become inaccessible, but these were made early on with technologies that had limited use. A couple of times recently I've had to recover data from early versions of wordstar and the not wildly successful (but much lamented) outline processor grandview. Even in the latter case I was able to find a free conversion program in a couple of minutes. Moreover, librarians and others are aware of the potential problems and are working on solutions. But of course your major point is well taken. You want to keep your files as easily accessible as possible and take as few chances as possible. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Tony wrote: Best backup medium is probably binary printed on acid-free paper as barcodes. This is well capable of true Dead Sea Scrolls archival longevity, if suitably stored. That is probably the most unique solution I've heard all day, and probably all year. :-) If one could transcribe the bar-code to granite (and it's possible), you could have something that would last close to 30,000 years before gradually turning into clay. Who'd read it then, or how, I couldn't rightly say. ;-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
So getting an archival medium is only a third of the problem. What happens in 10 years when no one uses TIFF files anymore. Very good point! One possible solution would be to keep a version of Photoshop 6, or whatever application you created your archived images with, on your computer. Or to keep your old computer and software next time you upgrade to something faster. Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Winsor Crosby wrote: It is not wide spread, but photographers have archived color images as black and white color separations for years. The longevity of black and white film is pretty well established. That's a redundancy that I vaguely knew about, but didn't consider. Haven't even heard much about it since I was a kid. It certainly *is* a true archiving method...is it still being done? Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Winsor Crosby asked Could you not combine the scanned black and white separations as layers in PhotoShop? Yep. See this interesting example: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
What CDRs would be the good quality ones? Thanks! Andrew Robinson Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a STUFF CUT Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Mitsui has been recommended by Plextor and others. Fuji is on the Plextor list as well and I have had good results with them. Maris - Original Message - From: Andrew Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? | What CDRs would be the good quality ones? | | Thanks! | | Andrew Robinson | | Tony Sleep wrote: | | On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Mark Edmonds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | wrote: | | Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to | archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR a | | STUFF CUT | | Any advice on this matter gratfully received! | | Good quality CDR should last a lot longer than that, 50-100+ years. | | Regards | | Tony Sleep | http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info | comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hello Mark, on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 you wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I totally agree, I suppose the best long term back up media are MODs. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. Sad, but true. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. I don't know the Iomega drive, but I assume that it's a proprietary drive using Iomegas own media, data format, drive, interface ... Right? In that case I'd never get the drive. Personals I don't think the DVD-RAM will bee supported in a few yeas, so I'd not get a DVD-RAM drive. [...] Any advice on this matter gratfully received! You have to chose a media used by the big companies, universities, etc. to backup their data. Such a solution will be much more expensive than the Iomegea thing, but chances will be better you can get a new drive to reed your archives in 20 years. I'd recommend a 2.6 or 5.2GB 5.25 MOD drive by Sony, HP or Maxpotix. Get the SCSI version of a high quality drive and uses good media, store them in a proper environment and never throw away the hard- and software you used to cerate the archives. Use simple data formats (TIFF) and files systems (FAT), not the latest fractal image compression format and NTFS2. cu Flo PS: I use a Sony 5.2 GB MOD (F551) to archive my data and a DDs4 tape to do daily backups. PPS: I have a Maxoptix 2.6 GB MOD (T5-2600) for sale. interested? The drive is in perfect condition.
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Hi, Mark-- I tend to disagree--storage *is* a scanning issue in the Real World. You have to put them somewhere, and Hard Drives are fallible, too. PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to 14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data! AFAICT, there's no clear-cut winner for storage--maybe the answer is to buy 2 or 3 recording machines--one to use, one for backup, and one for parts. Not too practical, is it? More likely than media obsolescence is *format* obsolescence. My only answer is to store on more than one disc and if you can, store on more than one medium and more than one format. And keep your original film in a safe place, because there's some chance that you or someone will have to do this again in 10 or 20 years. The scrolls in the Library of Alexandria, I'm told, were burned to heat the baths of the conquering generals. OTOH, my record as a new Nostrodamus is not perfect, either. Looking in either direction, the permanence of anything we know is still a crapshoot. :-) Best regards--LRA From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 Hello folks, Although this isn't strictly a scanning issue, I suspect other list members have thought about this as well and adopted solutions. Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. Any advice on this matter gratfully received! Mark _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Tried and tested - archive the films or slides. Maris - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? | Hello folks, | | Although this isn't strictly a scanning issue, I suspect other list members | have thought about this as well and adopted solutions. | | Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to | archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to | long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. | Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium | but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years | time. | | So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am | looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The | Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market | but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running | NT4.0 by the way. | | Any advice on this matter gratfully received! | | Mark |
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
I think that anything magnetic has a questionable archival life. In any event, the real solution, IMO, is to put the stuff on quality CD-R media, double back up, and plan on renewing the material on whatever is the best solution every 5 years or so. As long as you live, and/or your heirs care, this process can be continued indefinitely to save the 'precious' material. Hersch At 01:52 PM 08/06/2001, you wrote: Hello Mark, on Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:01:11 +0100 you wrote: Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I totally agree, I suppose the best long term back up media are MODs. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. Sad, but true. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. I don't know the Iomega drive, but I assume that it's a proprietary drive using Iomegas own media, data format, drive, interface ... Right? In that case I'd never get the drive. Personals I don't think the DVD-RAM will bee supported in a few yeas, so I'd not get a DVD-RAM drive. [...] Any advice on this matter gratfully received! You have to chose a media used by the big companies, universities, etc. to backup their data. Such a solution will be much more expensive than the Iomegea thing, but chances will be better you can get a new drive to reed your archives in 20 years. I'd recommend a 2.6 or 5.2GB 5.25 MOD drive by Sony, HP or Maxpotix. Get the SCSI version of a high quality drive and uses good media, store them in a proper environment and never throw away the hard- and software you used to cerate the archives. Use simple data formats (TIFF) and files systems (FAT), not the latest fractal image compression format and NTFS2. cu Flo PS: I use a Sony 5.2 GB MOD (F551) to archive my data and a DDs4 tape to do daily backups. PPS: I have a Maxoptix 2.6 GB MOD (T5-2600) for sale. interested? The drive is in perfect condition.
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
Lynn wrote: DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to 14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data! Presumably you meant 14GB. :) Funny I was just reading about DVD-RAM and DVD-RW last night and they were only talking a max of 4.7GB per side. But it may not take too long to get higher densities. Yes, you could lose a lot of data - one of the things DVD-RAM has going for it is a case around the disk akin to the case on a 3.5 floppy. Reducing the likelihood of damage has to help. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
He wants 20 years. My 20-year-old slides and negatives have degraded enough that they need Ed's roc, and are generally not as 'good as new.' I think the digital resource is more reliable, if proper care and storage, and regular renewal are carried out. Hersch At 03:30 PM 08/06/2001, you wrote: Tried and tested - archive the films or slides. Maris - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? | Hello folks, | | Although this isn't strictly a scanning issue, I suspect other list members | have thought about this as well and adopted solutions. | | Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to | archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to | long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. | Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium | but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years | time. | | So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am | looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The | Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market | but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running | NT4.0 by the way. | | Any advice on this matter gratfully received! | | Mark |
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
My long and detailed comments are below. BK - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans? Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. I'm curious, why do you trust MOD more than CDR? MOD will probably never become standard nor inexpensive. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. It really doesn't matter if anyone else has the hardware, as long as you do. As an example, although perhaps a poor one. I have some programs and data on 5.25 floppy disks from 17 years ago. During one of many computer upgrades about 8 years ago 5.25 disks were no longer a standard. I kept an old machine with a 5.25 drive (although I could have installed a 5.25 drive in a new machine) . The point is: if I want the data I can transfer it to 3.5 floppy disks or transfer it through my home office network to a new machine and put it on whatever medium is currently popular. The only inportant issue is that I must keep these disks refreshed because they are magnetic and I must transfer them to some other medium prior to disposing of, or failure of, the 5.25 drives. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. CD-ROM has been around for a very long time. It took along time to catch on. CD-R and CD-RW caught on quickly only because CR-ROM had been with us for so long. DVD-Video and DVD-Ram are both new in comparison to CD formats. As the cost of drives and media continue to drop DVD-RAM in some format or the other will no doubt be the standard to replace CD-ROM and CD-R. Iomege will probably gain a foothold in specialized markets as they have with their Zip and Jaz formats, but because their formats are proprietary they will probably never replace DVD formats. I've done a bit of research on storage media. Here are my thoughts: CD-R is currently the cheapest format for long term storage. If your storage needs can be met with CD-R it is probably your best low maintenance choice, as long as you can afford the time involved with burning CD's. And you be sure to keep a CD drive or two available when their popularity ceases, if ever. DVD-RAM, although currenty more expensive, provides more storage per disk. If you need vast quantities of storage (for 4000dpi 8/16 bit TIF files perhaps) this is a very viable low maintenance choice. This is also somewhat time consuming, as writing DVD-RAM is painfully slow. You will also want to be sure to keep your particular format drives available should they ever be discontinued in the future. Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high volume storage. It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance and attention. It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster. 60GB IDE hard drives are now selling for about $150. That's about $2.50 per MB. Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that holds the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the host machine and stored properly. One solution would be to archive to a removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for redundancy. Remove both and keep them properly stored. Refresh them every couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or some similar utility. Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive mirror raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line. This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine. As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free, high speed, high volume storage. Like DVD it is getting less and less expensive but is not for the faint of wallet. : ) For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I remember not that long ago (for some of us) paying $1000 for a 10 MB hard disk. Yes I said 10 MEGA bytes. It was new technology in 1984. Most people only had 2-5 MB hard drives. Way more than my US $0.02 worth! Bob Kehl Principal Kvernstoen, Kehl Associates Star Prairie, WI 54026 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out our website: www.kvernkehl.com
Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
on 8/6/01 6:13 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PC World (I got my copy just 2 hours ago) has some comments on DVD-RW and DVD-RAM. Not enough info, IMO, but a start. DVD holds a lot of data (up to 14 MB). Down side: if it goes bad, you *lose* a lot of data! AFAICT, there's no clear-cut winner for storage--maybe the answer is to buy 2 or 3 recording machines--one to use, one for backup, and one for parts. Not too practical, is it? More likely than media obsolescence is *format* obsolescence. My only answer is to store on more than one disc and if you can, store on more than one medium and more than one format. And keep your original film in a safe place, because there's some chance that you or someone will have to do this again in 10 or 20 years. The scrolls in the Library of Alexandria, I'm told, were burned to heat the baths of the conquering generals. OTOH, my record as a new Nostrodamus is not perfect, either. Looking in either direction, the permanence of anything we know is still a crapshoot. :-) From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Basically, I am looking for a long term (20 years+) storage medium to archive my scans on. I don't have faith in CDR and tapes are also prone to long term problems so the only solution I can see is a magneto optical disk. Another problem is that it is all well and good to have a bomb proof medium but it is no good if no one makes the hardware to read it in a few years time. So is there a clear cut winner out there? The two affordable options I am looking at are either the Iomega Optical drive or the Panasonic DVD-RAM. The Iomega seems to support a format which has some penetration in the market but the DVD-RAM looks like it might not have got very far. I am running NT4.0 by the way. I agree with Lynn that there are no clearcut winners. However, I am willing to hedge my bets and say that the broadest acceptable standard is likely to win. To this end, since I am not in a rush, I am willing to wait a few months until the DVD+RW format hits the market, read the reviews, then make an informed buying decision. For more on DVD+RW, see the following sites: http://www.dvdrw.com/ http://www.sony.co.jp/en/Products/DataMedia/products/DVD_plusRW/index.html There are other sites, but these will give you the flavor. Jim Snyder
