Rob,
also the more images that we can store on a piece of media,
the more 'we' are liable to loose should the media fail. I can just
get one image from my FujiFilm MX2900 Zoom onto a 1.44MB floppy. It
could be argued that I may just loose one image if a disc goes bad
instead of say 400 if a CD becomes unreadable or God knows how many if
a 22GB DVD switches on the 'Blue Screen of Death'.
I did loose about a dozen images from my digital camera when I
had a virus. I back up at the end of a month and had saved the
previous ones but not the current month.
At the University here in Aberdeen we have some George
Washington Wilson originals, still on glass plates. Have a look...
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~lib083/gww/about.html
Chris McBrien.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 5:07 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
> Laurie wrote:
> > I am sorry but I fail to see how higher speed and higher
> > density archival storage lessens the amount of time it
> > takes to copy data from one media to another, which I
> > take it was part of Chris's point.
>
> A CDR which I write at 2X can be read at 40X. If in five years time
I have
> a recording medium which stores say 20CDR's worth of data and
records at
> the equivalent of 40X, it will be easy to copy the information, and
a lot
> less disks will be required to store it, making retrieval much
simpler.
>
> > As for your statement that you probably won't be around in
> > 50 years to worry about the error rates on your CDRs might
> > be true but it sort of begs the question. Libraries, museums,
> > future generations will be around and will be faced with the
> > problem.
>
> Libraries, museums and future generations may not be interested in
my photographs.
> Libraries and museums will find archival methods which are not
affordable
> to the general public - like the US Archive's method of removing
acid from
> books to slow their deterioration. If future generations of my
family want
> to keep the data, they'll need to copy it to newer media. That's
true of
> *any* data - even those B&W photos mentioned elsewhere because the
originals
> will eventually decay.
>
> > Isn't the whole point of archiving materials for the
> > future uses and generations to make such materials
> > easily retrievable and useful in some later time under
> > different circumstances?
>
> Sure. I guess what I'm saying is that I think too much panic is
happening
> about how long data on CDRs will last. If the data is important
enough
> to the owners, they'll find ways of replicating it so nothing is
lost.
> It's the nature of the beast that we can only be sure how archival
something
> is after time has passed. We only know how archival Kodachrome is
because
> it's been around so long. I don't think anyone has said they're
planning
> to throw out all their films after they've scanned them. I don't
think
> anyone has said they're going to stop using C41 or E6 and go back to
Kodachrome
> and B&W film.
>
> The important facts have already been stated - a good quality CDR
like a
> Kodak Gold Ultima, properly stored should retain data for years to
come.
> Writing at higher speeds will reduce the reliability of the CDR
data in
> the long term. Exposure to light will cause the dyes to
deteriorate. Scratches
> may cause data loss. Labels may cause read errors. Pens which use
solvents
> may affect the coatings on the disk. Use good quality CDRs, write
at low
> speeds, avoid scratches, store the CDRs in the dark.
>
> How long will they last? We don't know. Any other statements are
speculation
> or estimations based on experiment, but waiting is really the only
accurate
> measure.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com
>
>
>
