Film originals are archived as color separations on B+W stock which has an ISO certified life of several hundred years, properly stored. All data will be there. There will not be the problems with archaic digital formats or bits and bytes going poof. They do not need to be re-copied to stay in good shape or keep up with hardware or format changes. They are actual images, not code, which will be reproducible by whatever methods exist at the time.
Those who argue against digital archiving of images tend to overlook that, once scanned, it is possible to periodically copy large digital archives entirely without human intervention ie there is no expensive labour cost and the cost of magnetic storage media continually reduces. Yes, some random errors will be introduced over time mostly at the pixel level but rarely to a degree that would be visible after the application of error correction algorithms.
Does anyone believe that a spool of valuable MP film or file of B&W negatives has never been irrepairably damaged by water, fire or other misadventure? Please don't forget when arguing against it that a digital archive of anything can exist identically in any number of locations and for that reason alone it is the ultimate back-up. OzJohn
OzJohn what matters is that films will be archived often in more than one way. What's also important is that they are archived with copies at different locations.
Yes disasters do happen and so that's taken into account. Film is just one way movies are archived now for posterity. Too much has already been lost because no-one gave a proper thought to it many years ago.
So the movie industry is now archiving on film, even wholely digital movies, and like digital there can be many copies.
George Eastman House and other Museums archive film as color separation as do many motion picture studios. As I said earlier, the costs are much lower for analog duplication. Set up a printer and let fly! Digital often requires format changes from generation to generation whereas film does not.
As for 120 vs 35 in the above about Reala, you must remember that you may be seeing a difference in micro vs macro contrast in images at the same magnification. I have posted several times on this before.