Chris McBrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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'.
*sigh* Except that a CDR has better longevity than a floppy disk. With
Kodak Gold Ultima CDRs at something like US50c each, why use a less reliable
technology? Extending the analogy, there's no reason why a 22GB storage
medium couldn't be just as cheap in a few years time - no reason not to have
multiple backups of data. Even now in the case of your fujifilm pics, it
would be a small effort to make several copies of the disk with 400 images
on it.
> 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
Thanks for the link! Some of the photos of Australia are fascinating!
Thinking of the earlier comment about not having a working CDROM drive 50
years hence - I wonder if we might forget how B&W (or colour) chemistry
works - or not be able to procure decent materials because all the companies
were put out of business by digicams and inkjets?
Rob
