Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,710   Posts: 1,548,627   Online: 1168
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    224
    Ever wonder how many of those wonderful digital files survive the second or third generation of upgrading computers. Have any photos stored on Floppy disks, 3.5's how about 5 1/4's or ta da.. 8 inch floppys. Or HP 7906 drives using 10 meg platters. "Oh you want your data back from our computer? Lets see the fees will be....." Digital will continue because there is no cure for stupidity and for them P. T. Barnum knew how to drain their pockets. PS Just retired from a lab with HP-85 computers still running. The cost of replacing every generation of storage... keep paying oh gullible and foolish one's the economy needs you.

  2. #12
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Yes, I think it is sad that all family photos, its photographic history, will not survive like it did when film was used.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  3. #13
    Mike Wilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Misissauaga Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,939
    Images
    29
    I think there was a technical Oscar awarded last year for a digital movie to film record archiving process.
    my real name, imagine that.

  4. #14
    Matthew Cherry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Stamford, CT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    70
    I'm confused, it looks like that article was published in 2007?

  5. #15
    naeroscatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Newmarket Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    848
    Images
    38
    Film is a LOT cheaper to store than digital
    Not only cheaper but film and prints have much longer life than digital media. I learned that the hard way when I lost data (including family pictures) stored on CD's after 5-6 years. At the time buying "archival CD" quality was very expensive. Even those were not guaranteed for the life of a negative or print. Try to retrieve now data from a floppy...
    Mihai Costea

    "There's more to the picture
    Than meets the eye." - Neil Young

    Galleries:My PN & My APUG

  6. #16
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Cherry View Post
    I'm confused, it looks like that article was published in 2007?
    Yes, it is very old news. Being discussed here already. The main study on this issue is from 2007.

  7. #17
    GRHazelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Jonesboro, GA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    375
    I retired recently after 40 years in Public Library work, so I have an almost instinctive concern for preservation of information. The incident cited about reading a 3.5 inch floppy is really relevant. Imagine trying to read a 5.25 or 8 inch floppy! So many of my friends and even some professional colleagues never print their digital images, nor do they have even the most primitive backup strategy. When their laptop hard drive fails, as it will sooner or later, all those family pictures are probably gone. Cellphone pix? Forget it!

    We will probably never leave those archetypal shoe boxes of family photos to our descendants. I treasure the photos my father took in the 30s, 40s and 50s; he processed the negatives himself and they're just fine.

    And the problem isn't limited to pictures. My daughter has had two volumes of her poetry published by university presses, on acid free paper, but her chapbook is only in E-book format. How long will that be available? And how many of the youngsters out there understand the problem, or even give a damn.

    And at the risk of seeming even more of an old fart, audio CDs have an unknown life span. I have a few of the first vinyl CDs ever made and they're still playable, although pretty noisy! Analogue is perhaps forever.... Digital is another matter.

  8. #18
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    It worth noting again, I think, that this behavior is by design. The entire digital technology marketing premise, and with it the reason for digital's very existence, is the principle of planned obsolescence.

    Today's digital technology is engineered to not work with yesterday's digital technology. That's the whole idea. Were it not, then the economic house of cards underpinning the entire industry would collapse.

    Unfortunately, this model which is so good at intentionally causing, then making money off of, people's frustrations is in direct opposition to the meaning of the term "archival..."



    Ken
    Everything about this is dead on. Nikon, Canon, et all are laughing all the way to the banks while droves of people believe they're somehow ahead of the curve now that they don't have to deal with those pesky negatives (which btw are an implicit archive just by their existence!).
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #19
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Europan View Post
    Considering a 1000-ft. roll of standard black-and-white film we talk about some $400 generating cost. Since that roll will last about 400 years the archiving cost per anno is $1 for it. A 1000-ft. roll of 35-mm. film contains 16,000 frames of 24 mm × 18 mm. Given a resolution of 200 line pairs per millimeter we have 17.28 Megapixel available, the roll thus holding 276.48 Gigapixel. Encoded 34.56 Gigabytes
    One small pedantic point (I agree with your post whole heartedly), it's 18mm if they're shooting 4-perf. Many shoot 3-perf Super 35, which is 13.9 mm on the short side.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #20
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    682
    Images
    2
    I think it would be good to consider :

    a) Are these digital memories meant to be stored forever? (does the late night party swigging which went on fb/instgram/wherever have to be around by the time the kids arrive?)

    b) possibilities of Cloud storage.

    c) CG generated graphics and movies - especially the 3d ones?

    I am not saying either medium is *better* for storage, I am saying it needs to be compared a little better.


    To qualify: I lost a 400Gig HDD a year back - it fell 1.5ft onto the ground and then poof. I generally have the strategy of HDD+ HDD+ optical medium(when I can). That time, it was my main HDD and I didnt have *some* of the pictures backed up, well nearly half a year's worth of travels. Then again, my processing of one of my Kumbh Mela rolls went kaput also...
    Last edited by analoguey; 08-13-2013 at 02:13 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: more information

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin