Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

[Mike Kersenbrock]

Chris McBrien wrote:
> 
> Surely longevity is the key word here and not pure capacity.
> 
> As the amount of stored data increases we do not want to have to spend
> a bulk of our time copying all the library CDs onto the latest media,
> we want to be creating and storing the latest
> information/music/photos.

I'd think that one would want to.  What if your current image library
were all on 1.44 MB floppies, say, a couple thousand of them?  Would you
think it a pain to transfer them over to CD-R's?  Answer is of course,
"yes", but wouldn't one think that *using* the floppies to be a pain when
one has something so much better/denser at hand?  It's already projected
that advanced DVD read/writeables (of at least one of the currently debated
formats) will go to 22 Gb or so per disk, "replacing" something like 30 CD-R's
per disk.  Later there undoubtedly there will be something that does the
same to those DVD re-writeable disks as well.  When one is using those
daily, I think they will *seem* like 1.44MB floppies do to us now.  I
submit one will want to transfer them, and not just for digital regeneration
purposes.

Mike K.