50% of my ten year old jpegs on magnetic won't open; it was 10% of the same pictures five years ago.
That's thousands of copies distributed worldwide. The universal reason for doing so is cost. At one point it was less expensive to distribute cinema via reels. Now, it is in binary on magnetic disks. They would not do so if there was not a ROI on that institutional move.
The error rate of digital files is probably no better or worse than the error rate of jammed film or poorly developed film or negatives lost by the lab, all of which have happened to me. Analog is hardly a perfect system and has its own vulnerabilities. What I find interesting is that Kodak tried to be a part of this because they saw the commercial need, but management did not follow up. They tried to be part of the market BOTH for analog and digital preservation because both have their place.
1. The distribution of digital movies is NOT with harddrives. The movies are transmitted from the distribution location to the theatre's harddrive via the internet and/or satllelites. You are blinded by your religious bias toward film, and so much that you actually tell little fibs to bulster your argument. Your comments kill your integrity.
2. The "error rate" of digial files is nearly non-existent. The copy function uses check-sum logic to insure that the original and the copy match 100%.
Stick to topics you actually know something about.
A 3TB eSata external drive costs $200. A 1TB costs $75.
TIFF, and many other LossLESS digital formats are available to use.
Easy, easy, easy....just drag and drop. On more then one target external drive.
Keep one at your place, the other at mother's.
That's just not nice. I don't think he's lying, just mistaken.Quote:
and so much that you actually tell little fibs to bulster your argument.
I think his comments kill his credibility (partially, anyway). I don't see any thing that indicates his level of integrity.Quote:
Your comments kill your integrity.
The error rate of digital files is there, but infinitesimal *if* a master of 100% fidelity is properly copied.
And check sum logic scans *do* find errors, do they not? And guess what? Some are fatal errors because there was an error with the "master", which may or may not be the authentic master. For archiving, there is a chain of authenticity.
IMO, jpegs suck. But my only digital camera now, a P&S, only takes jpegs.
You know, recently I released a 2 disk DVD set for sale about Emulsion Making and Coating.
Now, this is not a sales pitch it is a story about making the DVDs.
First, the software for the camera is incompatible with most editing software so you can't see the image or hear the sound (take your pick). You have to get special translating software to yield 2 files of image and sound and then these go into the editor. (this is true of many editors).
Well, once edited, you make your master and take it to a shop to dupe it. They read it! Hah, the errors climb during reading and their software tells you it is either a checksum error or one of 2 other types. If the number of errors climb over a certain amount, the disc cannot be copied.
The engineers at the shop told me that most common DVD writers made disks with so many errors in dupes that their shop (and other) were unable to copy them. I had to make 3 masters before I got one that had a low enough error rate that dupes could be made. Their software was able to fix these errors but this indicated to me how chancy this process is.
Almost all disks have errors or create them and only smart algorithms will fix the problem.
At the present time, I have many PDF files that will not open. They are ok, but the Adobe reader has changed so much that older files cannot be read. I have Word files that com from the previous version that I am using that I cannot read. I get very esoteric error messages that when searched for on Google indicate a "protection" error based on upgrades to internal Word and Office security which has rendered the files unreadable by the new version.
Interestingly, if I install the current Word on the old computer that the DOC file came from, it can be opened just fine due to the lower security OS (ME vs XP).
The point of this? Computer files seem to become obsolete or contain many errors which makes it difficult to work with them over a time base that is probably on the order of 5 - 10 years.