Re: OT Re: Digital Storage
PA> I would agree with TIFF as a format if it weren't so loosely followed. You can PA> never be sure if a TIFF saved by one application will be readable by PA> another, in PA> my experience. The best format for future readability would be plain bitmap, without any compression (or just some easy RLE compression). Easiest to just write a reader for. I don't necessarily mean BMP format, any bitmap format without header will do. If I was _really_ concerned over reading the data after 50 years, I would put the file format definition on every disc, maybe even file a printed definition of the CD format (red book,..) in the safebox along with the actual discs. But I am not NASA, so I don't. ;-) Some other weak points of CDs: be very careful about writing on the surface, as the actual data layer is IMMEDIATELY below the writing surface, unprotected by ANY plastic layer. Try it on a dead CD-R - just scratch the paint, and you discover the reflective metal layer peels away too! don't get them wet, some cd-rs were reported to delaminate when immersed in water ... Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT Re: Digital Storage
At 05:16 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, you wrote: >On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Patrick White wrote: > > My pick is CD-Rs with JPEGs on them. Some CD-Rs are touted at > surviving > > 100 years (?) under ideal storage conditions, so they meet media longevity. > >I don't trust such numbers, especially considering CDR has only been >around for what, five years? :) > > > browsers, which all read JPEG format images, that format seems the best > >Ideally, you might want to NOT use jpeg, though, since it is technically a >lossy format. Wouldn't TIFF or something be better? I would agree with TIFF as a format if it weren't so loosely followed. You can never be sure if a TIFF saved by one application will be readable by another, in my experience. >-- >http://www.infotainment.org > "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT Re: Digital Storage
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Patrick White wrote: > My pick is CD-Rs with JPEGs on them. Some CD-Rs are touted at surviving > 100 years (?) under ideal storage conditions, so they meet media longevity. I don't trust such numbers, especially considering CDR has only been around for what, five years? :) > browsers, which all read JPEG format images, that format seems the best Ideally, you might want to NOT use jpeg, though, since it is technically a lossy format. Wouldn't TIFF or something be better? -- http://www.infotainment.org "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT Re: Digital Storage
"Petter Jarbo" wrote: >I've had the pleasure of thinking about digital archiving at work. I work at >a Neurophysiology dept at a hospital and we produce a lot of digital data >and one of our great problems is how to properly archive every test we >perform. The outcome of our intensive thinking :) would be Magneto-optical >disks. >They are really reliable, we have disks nearly ten years old that works like >a charm. They can be stored 50 years, or so they say. The disks are >protected by a plastic case and they come in both 5 1/4" (5.2Gb) and 3 1/2" >(1.3Gb). Of course not everyone has a reader, but I'm talking about >archiving for your own purposes. >The 3 1/2" drives are coming down in price. I think you could find a reader >(USB) for US$300-350 today. Of course the disks are a bit on the expensive >side (20-25$) but hey, you get what you pay for :) For data archival, there are several things you probably really want to consider: 1) media longevity. 2) future media readability. 3) data format readability. Like you said, MO works on the longevity, but as they never were a popular technology, and are less popular now, they loose on the future media readibility front -- if you cannot replace a failed drive, then the data is effectively lost. You don't mention anything about data format, but I've seen some image formats come and go already (eg. Amiga IFF). The more disused they become, the harder it will be to find tools that read them. If you pick the wrong one, you'll have to copy the images to another in order to keep them readable, and by that time, the task will be huge. My pick is CD-Rs with JPEGs on them. Some CD-Rs are touted at surviving 100 years (?) under ideal storage conditions, so they meet media longevity. The readers are everywhere, and the numbers of readers is still growing (even new DVD drives still read them), so they meet the future media readibility criteria. And with the ubiquity, and likely longevity, of web browsers, which all read JPEG format images, that format seems the best long-term choice. Just a thought, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT Re: Digital Storage
I've had the pleasure of thinking about digital archiving at work. I work at a Neurophysiology dept at a hospital and we produce a lot of digital data and one of our great problems is how to properly archive every test we perform. The outcome of our intensive thinking :) would be Magneto-optical disks. They are really reliable, we have disks nearly ten years old that works like a charm. They can be stored 50 years, or so they say. The disks are protected by a plastic case and they come in both 5 1/4" (5.2Gb) and 3 1/2" (1.3Gb). Of course not everyone has a reader, but I'm talking about archiving for your own purposes. The 3 1/2" drives are coming down in price. I think you could find a reader (USB) for US$300-350 today. Of course the disks are a bit on the expensive side (20-25$) but hey, you get what you pay for :) Just a thought. Petter Jarbo (Delurking in progress...) > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 22:07:00 -0800 > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Digital Storage > > Well, I thought I would tell you all about an experience I am going > through. Hopefully, you will learn from my frustration. > > We have had many discussions of archiving images and how stable > digital storage is. Let me first tell you how I handle my images. > Each roll that is processed is scanned and stored with an assigned > roll #. Standard storage is jpg at 5% compression-max resolution of > scanner (2800 dpi). When enough rolls have been scanned to fill a CD, > I burn 2 copies of the rolls (original and backup). So I have a bunch > of CD's that function as my catalog of images and many times the basis > for digital printing, etc. I put the original and backup in a jewel > case that holds 2 cd's and then store them. > > A few days ago, I needed to find an image so I pulled out a few of the > CD's and put one in the drive - couldn't read it. I looked at it and > found that it was cracked. I started to examine several of them and > found that they all were exhibiting the same problem. Turns out that > the jewel cases I had used had very stiff spindles to hold the cds and > it was causing them to crack and radiate cracks from the center > outward. > > I am in the process of copying all the cd's back to hard disk to > reburn them and *NOT* use those jewel cases again! So far, I have > lost 2 cd's (both original and backup are unusable) which is about 10 > rolls. On the fortunate side, I have the negatives and can rescan > them. > > I haven't checked my digital only images (Nikon Coolpix) yet. For > those, they would just be lost. So, be careful and cautious, because > these images are fragile and deserve major care. > > I'm not trying to flame the digital/film debate, but I am sure glad I > have the negatives! > > > Bruce Dayton (record on film/print digitally man) > - - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
