[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
PD drives were a precursor to the RW technology. They both read CD-ROMS and could read and write to PD disks. The name came from Phase-change Disk and was invented by Panasonic. I still own two drives and too many disks. The disks held up to 650 megs, and were the same size as CD-ROMS or other CDs, but they were held in a box cartridge. The disks looked like a CD, in that they had a clear side and a reflective side and were written and read trough the clear side. They, like CDRW, were written to and read by a laser. The cartridge looks identical to a CD-RAM disk (the ones that are in a cartridge, some are made without one I believe). There are said to have a shelf life of at least 35 years, and can be rewritten up to 10,000 times. What I liked most about them is that they had a permanent low level formatting which was burned into the disk which determined all the block locations. As a result, the preformatting was permanent, and you could literally change them from a Mac format to a PC format disk (when blank or is reformatted) in something like 18 seconds. Also, they work just like a hard drive, or zip drive in that they store sequentially, and material can be erased and rewritten continually without any reformatting, but they are fully optical. Unfortunately, one of my drives started to miswrite, and they had one very bad habit. Like Zip disks, they had an extra storage area so that bad blocks could be written out and replaced with blocks from this extra storage area, so the disk continued to have the full 650 megs when first formatted. However, if they began to get a lot of errors due to a bad drive (bad laser, dirt, etc) this error area would end up filled up, and soon the extra allocation blocks would get used up. Once this happened, the disk locks and can no longer be erased without a low level (or is it high level, I always mix those up) special writer, which only Panasonic and 3M (who made the disks) had. So, I now have a number of these disks that cannot be erased since no-one still has the devices to reformat them (I asked both 3M (now Imation) and Panasonic). Unlike CD-RW technology, these disks cost almost $100 each in their heyday. The last time I picked some up on ebay they were down to $5 each. However, the one drive I have that works still, is a external which uses a parallel interface, and is pretty slow (the internal was SCSI). I would say for the most part CD-RW has taken over the need for these, but they still had some features not found on CD-RW. Oh well, technology marches on... Art Brad Davis wrote: What's PD? Brad On 10/12/04 2:50, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam McCandless wrote: At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote: [snip] A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. [big snip] A nice explication, Art. Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad? No, I left out DVD because I haven't bought one yet, and therefore I have not done a great deal of research into the units or the media. Obviously, the design crams a lot more data into a smaller space, but that doesn't necessarily mean the storage is less reliable. After all today's hard drives are much more reliable in terms of error rates (not speaking of mechanical breakdown necessarily) than much large, older, slower, and lower density units were years ago. My only worry with DVD is that they hold a heck of a lot of data and a failed disk could mean that much more lost. However, as others have pointed out, by triplicate copies, you get good value both in terms of cost and space. I have to admit double layering makes me nervous for archiving, but 4.7 gigs isn't bad with single layer. I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses DVD-+RW is similar. DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are readable on many DVD-RAM drives. Art [snip] I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. [snip] Thanks. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Sam McCandless wrote: At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote: [snip] A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. [big snip] A nice explication, Art. Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad? No, I left out DVD because I haven't bought one yet, and therefore I have not done a great deal of research into the units or the media. Obviously, the design crams a lot more data into a smaller space, but that doesn't necessarily mean the storage is less reliable. After all today's hard drives are much more reliable in terms of error rates (not speaking of mechanical breakdown necessarily) than much large, older, slower, and lower density units were years ago. My only worry with DVD is that they hold a heck of a lot of data and a failed disk could mean that much more lost. However, as others have pointed out, by triplicate copies, you get good value both in terms of cost and space. I have to admit double layering makes me nervous for archiving, but 4.7 gigs isn't bad with single layer. I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses DVD-+RW is similar. DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are readable on many DVD-RAM drives. Art [snip] I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. [snip] Thanks. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Hello, I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses DVD-+RW is similar. DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are readable on many DVD-RAM drives. Concerning the differences between DVD+R and DVD-R I have read an interesting (very technical) article that goes into detail: http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 -- Best regards, Dieter Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Arthur Entlich wrote: And even if a neg was to get scratched or damaged, that is repairable. However, a slight scratch on a CD may make it completely unreadable. Note that there are software utilities for reading CD's that have errors to extract the files anyway. One I've seen (can if config'd) ask you (over and over again) if you want to try and re-read the data-block (within the file) that errored. Ad-infinitum. Even if an error persists, you can still extract files with those errors in them, so one may still have a photo but with a blotch in the file (like a scratch, with severity depending on data format, error location, error size, etc). Of course if the scratch is in the most inappropriate spot of the CD, things could get harder I suspect. :-) Mike K. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
What's PD? Brad On 10/12/04 2:50, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam McCandless wrote: At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote: [snip] A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. [big snip] A nice explication, Art. Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad? No, I left out DVD because I haven't bought one yet, and therefore I have not done a great deal of research into the units or the media. Obviously, the design crams a lot more data into a smaller space, but that doesn't necessarily mean the storage is less reliable. After all today's hard drives are much more reliable in terms of error rates (not speaking of mechanical breakdown necessarily) than much large, older, slower, and lower density units were years ago. My only worry with DVD is that they hold a heck of a lot of data and a failed disk could mean that much more lost. However, as others have pointed out, by triplicate copies, you get good value both in terms of cost and space. I have to admit double layering makes me nervous for archiving, but 4.7 gigs isn't bad with single layer. I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses DVD-+RW is similar. DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are readable on many DVD-RAM drives. Art [snip] I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. [snip] Thanks. -- Sam -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
What software are you referring to Mike? And what limitations are there - e.g. Which OS, interface (SCSI Vs. USB 1.1 Vs. 2.0). I have both PC (windows 2000) and Mac (Mac OS X) available to me. Brad On 10/12/04 8:33, Mike Kersenbrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: And even if a neg was to get scratched or damaged, that is repairable. However, a slight scratch on a CD may make it completely unreadable. Note that there are software utilities for reading CD's that have errors to extract the files anyway. One I've seen (can if config'd) ask you (over and over again) if you want to try and re-read the data-block (within the file) that errored. Ad-infinitum. Even if an error persists, you can still extract files with those errors in them, so one may still have a photo but with a blotch in the file (like a scratch, with severity depending on data format, error location, error size, etc). Of course if the scratch is in the most inappropriate spot of the CD, things could get harder I suspect. :-) Mike K. -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
I sell CDs on the internet and have used several burners and numerous software programs to burn them. Have to admit that I have just about given up trying to burn at the optimum speed if I want full data fidelity, and have resigned myself to burning at 2X or perhaps 4X to get valid data transfer. Anyone else find this to be true? Hank - Original Message - From: Mike Kersenbrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:21 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!! ?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_T_S=F8nderland?= wrote: Yup, same solution here. Have your files on at least two harddisk spindles. The chances of both failing at the same time should be small. Use 3 if you are unsure and your data means a lot to you. For backup of stuff stored on my computer (which includes images), I backup to another hard disk that's on *another* computer so that if the PC's power supply blows up and torches all the hard disks that I don't have both the original and backup blown. As to DVDs and such, if one makes four copies on DVDs (as was suggested for CDs) then it cuts down to something still over a gigabyte. As to the suggestion about labels and pen-writing on CD's, it should be better on DVDs where the recording layer is at the middle of the disk rather than a hair below the top (label side) like it is on CDs. There's a thick layer of that very tough plastic between a felt pen and the active layers. Mike Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving???!!!
Most big banks use tapes as backup medium. I am not sure if that is because they are more reliable, or just cheaper. DDS tapes (essentially a data version of DAT) are about £2.50 each in the UK. Ebay yeilds a fair few DDS tape units for sale (SCSI). DDS units have 2 capacities - the first uncompressed, the second compressed (hardware compresison in the drive). Capacities: DDS1 2/4 Gb DDS2 4/8 Gb DDS3 12/24 Gb DDS4 20/40 Gb There are a few DDS3 and a lot od DDS2 on ebay at the mo. Chris -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Hi Brad, Interesting posting, and something most of us can certainly relate to. A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. The CDs you get which are pre-written with things like software (and music or images, for that matter) are not at al the same process as the ones you burn. Mass-produced CDs are actually press molded using glass plates that have the mirror image pits and bumps cut into them with a special machine. These CDs are more similar to an LP record, an that molten plastic is poured into a glass die, and an impression is created. This disk is then coated on one side (the side with the pits and bumps on it) with vaporized aluminum (or sometimes other metals) and then a clear varnish, followed by a label (made of quick drying enamels or other paints) is applied on top of that. These are CD-ROM disks in the sense that they are READ ONLY, they cannot be written to and never were in the usual sense of the word. Although any CD is vulnerable to damage, these are pretty stable. In years passed, there have been problems with pinholes in the aluminized coating, or the coating applied to thinly, or poorly varnished CDs, allowing the aluminum to corrode. Sometimes the paints used to make the label have migrated into the varnish and damaged the aluminum. The purpose of the aluminum is act as a reflective surface to reflect the light that hits the clear portions back to laser/pickup. The pit areas are more opaque and less reflective, thus the necessary binary on/off or zero's and ones. The type of CDs you write to at home are of two basic types. CD-R and CD-RW. CD-R disks can be only written to once in any one location on the disk. In other words, although you may be able to use the disk for a number of writing sessions, each time you do so, you must write to a new area of the disk. Once the disk is full, it can never be written to again. CD-RW is a different technology. It has a reversible reaction that can be erased and rewritten to hundreds or thousands of times. CD-R technology uses a disk which is constructed similarly to the first disk discussed, with one main difference. The disk has no physical pits and bumps in it. Instead, under that aluminum, silver or gold reflective coating, there is a dye layer. This dye can be made up of a multitude of different dye formulas, which explains in part the difference in color of these disks. I have seen all shades of blue, yellow, green and what appears to be clear to our eyes. Each of these different dye formulas has different levels of permanence, just like dyes in films. In fact, each disk tells you the dye it uses, which is encoded on the disk, along with the manufacturer who actually made it. There are free programs available on the net which can read this information for you. CD Identifier is one. The way these types of disks store information is relatively simple. These dyes are basically opaque to the laser beam. The write laser burns the dye off or the laser shuts off and leaves the dye alone. This creates the zeros and ones again. These types of disks are more vulnerable to damage than the previous CD-ROM type. All the same physical damage is possible, (scratches, gouges, etc) and the reflective surface can also oxidize (which is why silver/gold or pure sputtered gold is best). However, being dyes, they are also vulnerable to light, humidity, gases, high temperatures, etc. Some are more vulnerable than others. If the dye begins to fade, the laser starts to be unable to read the zeros and ones anymore. These disks general do best kept in the dark, kept in cool surroundings and, if possible kept in a holder that doesn't off gas, and give the disk some breathing space. (Similar to photo film). Other things that can harms them are adhesives from labels, and dyes and solvents in marking pens, as well as physical damage from pressure from pen tips, etc. In general, the best way to mark them is on the inside spindle ring which has no CD information (the totally clear part next to the hole in the center). They are best stored in the plastic jewel boxes, or some way where they has a bit of air circulation, but are kept as dark as possible. Even reading these disks does some degrading to them, since the read laser, although much less intense, is a light source. Misumi and Kodak gold sputtered disks are some of the better types for archival storage. However, another problem is storing unwritten disks. Recently, there have been discussions about how long the dyes remain usable before they are written to, and some are suggesting 18-24 months before the dyes may not respond properly to the laser (for burning). You should definitely keep unused disks dark, cool and sealed until needed. The last technology is that of the CD-RW. This is again quite different from the CD-ROM or CD-R. Again we start with a plastic disk with a reflective coating. And again, this disk does not have pits and bumps.
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Arthur Entlich wrote: Misumi and Kodak gold sputtered disks are some of the better types for archival storage. That was supposed to read: Mitsui and Kodak gold sputtered disks are some of the better types for archival storage. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Art, Thanks for the info, especially on the CD-RW disk, Your comment that they should be more reliable fits your description well. I'm going to look into purchasing them - are you aware of any that are considered better. It would seem that all of these are subject to how well the coatings are handled. While the RW type would be more expensive, there is always the possibility of reuse, so that may mitigate that problem to some extent. Like you, I had heard that the CD-RW was less reliable than a CD-R, but I hadn't looked further. I had figured that my old HP had a hotter laser in general, and that perhaps the electronics - mechanics is a little more forgiving since it was not intended to work with higher speeds. I am going to see if I can get it to work with current CD-RW discs. Speed isn't a major factor - the PC - P4 that the HP drive lives on is not my main machine and is networked with my Mac G4 Dual. If you know of a new burner that you would recommend, I am aware that the HP has a lot of years on it from the point of view of technology and may not be compatible with my next machine even, so it prolly is time to start thinking about an upgrade. Here again, the issue isn't speed, it is reliability for both reading and writing. It is my experience that there will be some units from companies such as HP or perhaps Sony (at least in the past) that are much more forgiving, much more compatible with everything else than some of the others. Unfortunately, I am no longer around enough different equipment to have any idea which units those might be. Again, thanks for the description of the mechanism of CD-RW. That mechanism gives me a much greater sense of confidence than what I knew of the other approach. -Brad -To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in. Richard Feynman -The Character of Physical Law - On 9/12/04 4:03, Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Brad, Interesting posting, and something most of us can certainly relate to. A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. The CDs you get which are pre-written with things like software (and music or images, for that matter) are not at al the same process as the ones you burn. Mass-produced CDs are actually press molded using glass plates that have the mirror image pits and bumps cut into them with a special machine. These CDs are more similar to an LP record, an that molten plastic is poured into a glass die, and an impression is created. This disk is then coated on one side (the side with the pits and bumps on it) with vaporized aluminum (or sometimes other metals) and then a clear varnish, followed by a label (made of quick drying enamels or other paints) is applied on top of that. These are CD-ROM disks in the sense that they are READ ONLY, they cannot be written to and never were in the usual sense of the word. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote: [snip] A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. [big snip] A nice explication, Art. Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad? [snip] I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. [snip] Thanks. -- Sam Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Art, Thanks for your post. That is some of the best info I have seen on the subject. I learned a lot! Jim Couch Arthur Entlich wrote: Hi Brad, Interesting posting, and something most of us can certainly relate to. A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues. ... Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Brad and others, Your expereince points to a tip I have heard elsewhere - keep your older CD drive on hand to read old discs. I did so and am very thankful I did. I have about 20 archived discs at work that our new computers will not read. I am in the process of recopying them to new discs. I read them on the old drive and burn new discs on the newer drives so that I can access them as needed. I think this may become a common task. The information from you, Art, and others may help in makeing the new copies more reliable and useable in the future. Jim Couch Brad Davis wrote: Archiving: I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Hello Brad, I haven't been archiving on this media personally (I still have everything on a huge internal HDD), but do have some idea from forums etc. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml points out that putting lables or writing on CD can cause the data to be lost. There are some other interesting points in the article as well. I also remember reading another thread where some claimed that re-writable DVDs were more reliable than plain once-writable media. I am not sure if that is true for CD's as well. Most big banks use tapes as backup medium. I am not sure if that is because they are more reliable, or just cheaper. -Navjot On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:34:49 -0800, Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Archiving: I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD. Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower. I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories irrespective of brand of CD used. CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD) seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do, putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should. I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost anything of value - yet. I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? Brad -- Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Mike Johnston addressesd the issue of CD quality just recently. Here is a link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-05-09-04.shtml I have run into the same problem with some data files from work. A couple of tips, good quality CDs do seem to help. Burn AT LEAST two CDs and check them to make sure that all files are readable on both, many times you will find a file unreadable even immediatly after writing. If you have two readable CDs chances are in a few years, that you will be able to recover the needed file off of at least one of them. Yes, this is a royal pain in the ass, but it does seem to be the safest way. Frankly this is one of the major reasons that I have not moved from film to digital. Until an affordable and truly reliable way of storing data is available I remain hesitant to commit all my eggs into one basket. At least with film I can always rescan if needed. Jim Couch Brad Davis wrote: Archiving: I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust. But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD. Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower. I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories irrespective of brand of CD used. CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD) seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do, putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should. I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost anything of value - yet. I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have, they seem to be an even more fugitive medium. Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? Brad -- Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
From: Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? Years ago when I had to make a decision on archiving, I began to suspect the same risk with CDs and opted for two external hard drives. I keep one copy of all files on my system, and have two 200gb firewire drives for backup. If one fails, the other can be copied to a replacement drive. It also means simplicity, speed, and easy file retrieval. I had hoped that DVD would provide an alternative but with conflicting standards, rapid changes in technology, and even greater unreliability, I passed. The biggest problem with CDs or DVDs is that you don't know if/when a file will fail and you must either rewrite everything every two years or so, or check files one at a time. Forget it!!- life's too short! Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Ed Verkaik wrote: From: Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes. Suggestions? Years ago when I had to make a decision on archiving, I began to suspect the same risk with CDs and opted for two external hard drives. I keep one copy of all files on my system, and have two 200gb firewire drives for backup. If one fails, the other can be copied to a replacement drive. It also means simplicity, speed, and easy file retrieval. Yup, same solution here. Have your files on at least two harddisk spindles. The chances of both failing at the same time should be small. Use 3 if you are unsure and your data means a lot to you. Håkon -- We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!
Brad Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't open - [snip] I'm sure books have been written on this subject, but I'll put in my 2 cents: You didn't say which 'name brands' you used. I would only use Mitsui Gold CDRs. Kodak also used to make an excellent gold CDR but I think they have been discontinued. It seems that very few people want to pay a premium price for quality. I think Mitsui has changed its name to Mam-e. A quality CDR may have a long shelf life after it is burned, but the shelf-life BEFORE it is burned is very short. I don't remember the exact number, but you should burn them within a few years after they are manufactured. I've read that problems with CD burners are common, e.g., dirt on the laser, misalignment, etc. can cause a burner to make poor quality CDs. I've read that DVDs are no better than CDs, and are probably worse. Hope this helps. Nick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: archiving scanned images to DVDs
wrote: I mistakenly purchased a box of DVD+RW discs rather than the DVD+R discs. I recall there was an issue with CD-RW media not being as durable as CD-R media. How about rewriteable DVD media? Does the same difference hold for DVD? AIUI CD-RW media are actually slightly _more_ stable, given dark storage in good conditions. I wouldn't trust anything to long-term storage on DVD however. The dyes are different to CDR/W, and some assessments have estimated safe archival life as 3-4yrs max. There are also issues around DVD's being unreadable on drives other than that on which they were written, something I have been personally bitten by with some DVDR supplied to clients, and also a DVDR supplied to me by a friend. When this happens, you can see the dirs and filenames OK, but can't actually open the files. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: archiving scanned images to DVDs
The view on RW media has flip flopped several times. I have always believed the technology use din RW media is superior to that of the R media., and some agree with me. Here's how they differ: R (write once) media has a dyes layer which is burned off by the laser to crete on or off bits. The dye, like all dyes, is sensitive to light, heat, UV, and just general degeneration. Each time it is read, it is again exposed to light. If it is left in bright lighting, it can fade. Further, recent articles I have read indicate that unwritten CD-R disks may become unreliable in as little as 18 months after manufacture (even before being written). RW technology is different. It is based upon a concept called Phase change There is a layer of material in that disk that is heat sensitive. The heat of the laser, rather than bleaching a dye, melts the layer and causes it to change phase from transparent to opaque. This is a very reversible process, Each time the laser heats a spot, it reverses from one phase to the other. It is not sensitive to ambient light or UV, and the temperature required to make the phase change is relatively high and concentrated. Any disk will be lost if it is heated too much and warps or dimensionally alters. In theory, phase change technology should remain stable for many years. I used to use a phase change product which was the precursor to RW technology. hey claimed it could be rewritten up to 10,000 times and had a 35 year shelf life. RW technology has the speed pre-written into the disks, unlike R, which can be written up to the limit of your system and their reliability levels. So, RW disks are rated for their highest level, and you can't push them further. If they cannot be made to write at their rated speed, it can mean your system cannot support the write speed, due to CPU overhead, speed of harddrives, or busses. I am still new to DVD, so it might depend upon the type of data being recorded, as to the speed the system can write at. I'm guessing here. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's time to archive about 10 gb of images from the hard drive. I mistakenly purchased a box of DVD+RW discs rather than the DVD+R discs. I recall there was an issue with CD-RW media not being as durable as CD-R media. How about rewriteable DVD media? Does the same difference hold for DVD? Also, second question. I purchased an 6X DVD drive. When writing photographic images to my current media, rated at 4X, the actual write speed varies between 1X and 2X. Is that related to writing image files? My files are mostly TIFFs with some Photoshop PSDs. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving scans - DVD vs CD
Mike Brown wrote: He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value based on extended temperature, pressure humidity storage. What else could he say??? well. we were actually finalizing this technology back in the year 1899, and we've been secretly testing the disks since then, and they were just fine until a couple of years ago, when the data started to become damaged and error prone ??? Any longevity claims of any length are based upon accelerated aging methods, which, as good as they may be (its all we have) may be very far off in either direction. Based upon our testing using 400 degree F conditions, to simulate heat damage over many years, we have determined these disks will melt after 75 years That's the problem with these tests, the only real method to test for age related changes is be letting things age. Any other method makes a lot of assumptions. Art Mike Brown wrote: I was lucky enough to attended IFA, the Berlin consumer electronics exhibition, last week managed to speak to a guy at Verbatim about their disks and longevity. (They're claiming 100 years on their write-once discs.) He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value based on extended temperature, pressure humidity storage. He mentioned that humidity is a particular problem - time to buy sealable storage units silica gel maybe (or is silica gel a contaminant???) Verbatim claim that their Super AZO dye makes a big difference (I notice that some Verbatim CD-R disks in a local store were Azo and others Super Azo). He went on to say that DVDs are better than CDs because both top and bottom surfaces are coated with plastic - reducing the risks from humidity and atmospheric contaminants. Interesting conversation but I'd like to see some lab results! Mike Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Laurie writes: Don't you have this reversed? My understanding is that JPEG is lossy while TIFF with LZW is lossless. Yes, I do, sorry. Fortunately, you understood what I meant, not what I wrote. I was in a rush, as usual. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Since JPEG is lossless and TIFF is not, this is to be expected. Don't you have this reversed? My understanding is that JPEG is lossy while TIFF with LZW is lossless. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) Mac writes: Contrary to what Anthony Atkielski wrote, I have NEVER seen a LZW Tiff come out larger than an uncompressed one, regardless of exact pixel content. Real-world photographic images rarely come out larger after compression, but I can generate such an image in about 30 seconds in Photoshop. I did that just now and got one that is 20% larger after compression. I have also never seen a compressed TIFF come out equal to or smaller than a JPEG at the same pixel dimensions, regardless of how how the quality setting of the JPEG. Since JPEG is lossless and TIFF is not, this is to be expected. The only time I've seen a compressed file come out larger than a non-compressed one is when using .zip on a JPEG. JPEGs are virtually incompressible to begin with, which is why attempts to losslessly compress them further will often produce larger files. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving and when to sharpen (was: Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Another aspect of purposing, different for different destinations, is the file format. I've had more than one publicist and publisher request that I provide (email, ftp) a jpeg in preference to a tiff because of the file size. (For this I use a high/maximum quality in photoshop terms: 10 to 12.) Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of the file they are getting. While jpg is the most known and common compression format on and for the web and may even be necessary if you are sending the file as an email attachment, to achieve that usefulness on the web or as an email attchment it is often necessary to use compression levels of 5 or less which really tends to loss a lot of data and information. However, for FTPing, it usually is not a necessity to reduce the file sizes to very small levels since most of the publishers and publicists generally have some sort of direct high speed connection to the internet and relatively large server space to store downloading files, as well as a desire to get maximum quality files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Archiving and when to sharpen (was: Color spaces for differentpurposes) Sharpness cannot be restored, it can only be simulated. Sharpening causes deterioration in image quality, so it should be avoided until the image is about to be prepared for a specific use. I archive all my images without sharpening. Agree. This is how I do mine. I'll do all the crop, tonal and other adjustments -- except resizing -- and archive that photoshop psd file (and the original vuescan raw scan file). Then for specific purposing I'll resize or resample as appropriate and sharpen as a last step before sending file to its destination. As this discussion has pointed out, the specific actions for purposing will be different depending on the use and destination. Even sharpening: some places will do their own sharpening (as mentioned). If I know this then I'll only lightly sharpen edges (a first stage of a two pass sharpening process, described in a Creativepro article by Bruce Fraser at www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html?origin=story). This article addresses one of the discussion items of this thread here: in Fraser's words one of the important questions about sharpening: When in the image-editing process should you sharpen? Another aspect of purposing, different for different destinations, is the file format. I've had more than one publicist and publisher request that I provide (email, ftp) a jpeg in preference to a tiff because of the file size. (For this I use a high/maximum quality in photoshop terms: 10 to 12.) -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was: Color spaces fordifferent purposes)
I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit ... From one, file size was specifically mentioned. Others may be due to habit, or their experience that once image goes through their prepress and screening they likely cannot discern a difference in the printed result. Bob Shomler Another aspect of purposing, different for different destinations, is the file format. I've had more than one publicist and publisher request that I provide (email, ftp) a jpeg in preference to a tiff because of the file size. (For this I use a high/maximum quality in photoshop terms: 10 to 12.) Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of the file they are getting. While jpg is the most known and common compression format on and for the web and may even be necessary if you are sending the file as an email attachment, to achieve that usefulness on the web or as an email attchment it is often necessary to use compression levels of 5 or less which really tends to loss a lot of data and information. However, for FTPing, it usually is not a necessity to reduce the file sizes to very small levels since most of the publishers and publicists generally have some sort of direct high speed connection to the internet and relatively large server space to store downloading files, as well as a desire to get maximum quality files. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
At 01:20 PM 6/9/02 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of the file they are getting. Hi Laurie, Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz? In any case, does the amount of reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the content? The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 1217,633 kb Your comment that lzw compressed TIFF files are as small as JPGs made me wonder if you are working with graphic files and if they offer better compression than photos. Later, Johnny __ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Date sent: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 15:09:58 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Johnny Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) At 01:20 PM 6/9/02 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of the file they are getting. Hi Laurie, Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz? yes In any case, does the amount of reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the content? yes; if there are many pixels of same color, image will compress more. The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 1217,633 kb Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? That's unusual. Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
At 05:32 PM 6/9/02 -0400, Mac wrote: Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? That's unusual. Hi Mac, Thanks for asking - it looks like the original TIFF file that I grabbed must have already been saved with lwz compression. So, I did the experiment again using a fresh scan of a different slide with the following results: TIFF: 56,264 kb TIFF with lzw compression: 35,364 kb JPG with Photoshop level 12:18,453 kb So, in both this case and the previous one, the JPG with level 12 compression is ~ 1/2 the size of a TIFF with lzw compression. Thanks again for bringing my mistake to my attention, Johnny __ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
It's not that unusual, though I don't recall why, and LZW compression will not reduce file size nearly as much as JPG Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 4:32 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) [snipped] The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 1217,633 kb Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? That's unusual. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
yes; if there are many pixels of same color, image will compress more. And that is almost never true for real-world photographs, although it is certainly true quite often for computer-generated images such as diagrams and the like. Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? It can be if there is a _lot_ of detail. In a lossless compression scheme, the chances of a compressed image being _larger_ than the original are always equal to the chances of it being smaller, if the image is completely random. In practice, totally random images are scarce, but the more detail an image contains, the more closely it approaches randomness, and the greater the probability that the compressed file may actually be larger than the uncompressed file. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:42:32 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) It's not that unusual, though I don't recall why, and LZW compression will not reduce file size nearly as much as JPG Maris Makes sense to me. Even at low compression (high quality) a JPEG is throwing away alot of similar color nuances. That's how it works. Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz? Yes, my fingers went faster than my mind when I wrote it. :-( Your comment that lzw compressed TIFF files are as small as JPGs made me wonder if you are working with graphic files and if they offer better compression than photos. I must be candid and note that I was only repeating what others have said in other discussions of file compression techniques and their comparative advantages and limitations. I personally tend to use Genuine Fractals with photographic images and not JPEG or LZW. My experiences in doing some of my own testing suggests that (a) it depends on the image as to how comparable the size of the file will be upon compression using LZW vr JPEG at level 10-12, (b) the level of quality (i.e., degree of artifacting and degradation of the image) often is dependent on the degree of compression one uses when saving as JPEG such that the compression needed to produce sizable reductions in file sizes tends to result in a trade-off with respect to an increase in image degradation, and (c) certain image enhancements do prior to compression tends to effect the efficiency of the compression performed by the different compression operations. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) At 01:20 PM 6/9/02 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: Although I concur with all you have said, I have to wonder if the publicist and publisher are requesting jpeg files rather than lwz compressed TIFF files out of force of habit, lack of knowledgabout the ability to compress TIFFs using the lwz compression which is as good if not better than the JPG compression at levels 10-12, or a lack of any real concern over quality of the file they are getting. Hi Laurie, Is it not lzw compression instead of lwz? In any case, does the amount of reduction in the file size using lzw compression vary considerably with the content? The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 1217,633 kb Your comment that lzw compressed TIFF files are as small as JPGs made me wonder if you are working with graphic files and if they offer better compression than photos. Later, Johnny __ Johnny Johnson Lilburn, GA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
Date sent: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 18:59:45 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Johnny Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) At 05:32 PM 6/9/02 -0400, Mac wrote: Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? That's unusual. Hi Mac, Thanks for asking - it looks like the original TIFF file that I grabbed must have already been saved with lwz compression. So, I did the experiment again using a fresh scan of a different slide with the following results: TIFF: 56,264 kb TIFF with lzw compression: 35,364 kb JPG with Photoshop level 12:18,453 kb So, in both this case and the previous one, the JPG with level 12 compression is ~ 1/2 the size of a TIFF with lzw compression. Thanks again for bringing my mistake to my attention, Johnny That makes more sense. Contrary to what Anthony Atkielski wrote, I have NEVER seen a LZW Tiff come out larger than an uncompressed one, regardless of exact pixel content. I have also never seen a compressed TIFF come out equal to or smaller than a JPEG at the same pixel dimensions, regardless of how how the quality setting of the JPEG. The only time I've seen a compressed file come out larger than a non-compressed one is when using .zip on a JPEG. Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving and when to sharpen(was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
I have occasionally gotten JPEGs that were larger than the original, uncompressed TIFF file if the file contained a lot of detail and had been heavily sharpened, and the JPEG compression was set at maximum quality / minimum compression. So it can happen, but in my personal experience only rarely. - David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 11:43 PM [snip] The only time I've seen a compressed file come out larger than a non-compressed one is when using .zip on a JPEG. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving to CD - is there a file sizelimit ?
I use Creator 4.0. on a Plextor 8X drive without buffer underrun protection. I had a rate of failures with version 3.5 and 4.0 both with this drive of about 25% until I changed to brand name disks. Since then I have had a ZERO failure rate. I always shut down all programs in my task bar prior to cutting a CD and I do not move the mouse or use the computer in any other manner during recording. I make a CD image prior to final recording, and I make sure anything that has a times shut down, like screen protectors, drive spin down, and sleep modes, is shut off. I will agree, however, that once Creator 4.0 gets any type of error, you have to reboot the computer to get it functional again. This seems to happen if I use any of the utilities that come with the program, like spin doctor, sound editor, etc, and then go back to CD Creator afterward. Art Mike Bloor wrote: At 20:50 02/05/2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kind of difficulty are you having? A single file must be written in one pass, with no pauses or interruptions, so if anything on the machine interferes, the file might not get written, and your CD becomes a shiny coaster. I don't think it's to do with buffers, speed or the capability of the CD writer. If I try to create a CD image on disk, I just get the same problems. I'm beginning to think that once Easy CD writer has had one problem, it then reports problems on everything until it is closed down and restarted. Mike Bloor Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving to CD - is there a file sizelimit ?
Dual boot is transparent to a scanner, so it shouldn't matter. Be sure that you install the software in two completely different places on the machine, however (you should not install it into the same directory on the same drive in the same partition, for example). - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 02:55 Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving to CD - is there a file sizelimit ? i have a duel book on my laptop and an LS-4000. it's installed one operating system and i was unable to install the software on the other system (windows 98 full addition). nikon said they don't support duel boots. has anyone any experience with this? joanna Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving to CD - is there a file size limit ?
On Thu, 02 May 2002 11:09:20 -0500 Charlie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Should I be having difficulties with a 140MB file ? I am using W2K and Easy CD Creator 4. Easy CD is, IME, a steaming pile of zero-tolerance poo, and apt to churn out coasters given the slightest glitch. Try Nero, or Gear, or almost anything else. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving
My experience is ... no false reading or miss to read with : Kodak, TDK and SKC (cheap but sure). My experience. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:26 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Archiving When archiving scans to a CD, is there any real quality difference between the various CD-R brands which have widely varying prices? Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Archiving
Kodak replaced the Gold Ultima (there may be some still out there) with the Gold/Silver hybrid, which is supposed to be about as good, but more economical. However, they have kept making their gold CD's as Pro Audio CD's (go figure...). A good source (with lots of other goodies) is InketArt http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/misc/index.html http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/cd/sort_of.html http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/kodak_cd.html http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/cd/kodak_audio.html tim a -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 23, 2002 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving The gold layer (it's not a coating, it's part of what the data is burned into - and also the most fragile part of the CD) - most of the gold cd's seem pretty good - Kodak, Just placed an on-line order for the Kodak CD-R Gold Ultima. $12.95 for a 20 pack including shipping. Thanks for the input. Howard -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: archiving scans to CD--safe from water?
If fire won't penetrate it -water won't either. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: archiving scans to CD--safe from water?
They are reasonably resistant to water, but will delaminate over time (I don't recall how long). If they have labels on, forget it. Also, any nasty oils or solvents in the flood water will do their own damage. And, good to store without any inserts in the case - saves having to deal with the soggy mush too. Somewhere at work I think we have the disaster recover paper on CD's - I'll see if the Conservator has it yet (the standards where still being worked on a while back). And a quick note - most items that are archived are actually more in danger from flood, fire, theft etc, than long term deterioration - so CD's stored in two locations makes sense. Tim A -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S Schwartz Sent: January 19, 2002 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] archiving scans to CD--safe from water? Apropos some recent discussions about archiving scans digitally to CDs: Are CD-R and CD-RW discs subject to water damage? I keep mine in a place that is fire-resistant but may be prone to flood. If they do get wet, any special salvage techniques? Stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
