Oh to have so much faith. Please I've worked on systems to keep archival copies of documents using RAID arrays and optical write once storage, (something much more reliable than the related CD ROMS). If you knew what could go wrong and how likely it is you'd have no faith at all.
At 11:18 AM 8/29/2002 -0500, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Knut Kampe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:27 AM >Subject: Re: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > > > At 09:44 29.08.02 -0500, you wrote: > > >alled base of jpg/tiff et al is huge. We'll be able to > > >read that for at least as long as your slides last! > > > > > >As to the physical format, who cares? Any collection of pictures can be > > >moved around a network as devices move to higher densities > > > > I don't dispute that jpg/tiff might be readable in 100 years. But the >media > > on which these images are stored today, might not be readable in 20 years. > > Magnetically stored data will definitely not last > 20 years. Most of the > > floppys I used 10 years ago are no longer readable today. Hard disks are > > similar. I'm not sure about discs, but I believe lifetime is in the range > > of ~50 years for them. > > > >I keep my images on a RAID system, so individual disk life is a non issue. >Any critical data is handled this way. Think about all the >companies/institutions/etc. that need to keep data for long peroids of time. >There are systems to do this, and the data is 100% preserved. > > > You will need to constantly "mantain" your picture library, copy it to new > > media etc. to keep your images. This is already problematic for some > > formats: jpg for example loose some quality every time they are copied as > > far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong on this). > > > >Wrong. You get a perfect digital copy each time. > >-R
