Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
Leonard Paris wrote: > Kodak gold CD-R disks were excellent. Unfortunately, they don't > make them anymore. Has anyone had any experience with TDK black? I can't > find them around here but have heard they are very good. That reminds me - I bought some Verbatim "vinyl" CDRs a few months ago. Haven't used any yet but they do look interesting. http://www.verbatim.com/products/products.cfm?pro_id=379 I almost managed to convince a colleague that you could play them on a turntable, but I couldn't keep a straight face. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
Kodak gold CD-R disks were excellent. Unfortunately, they don't make them anymore. Has anyone had any experience with TDK black? I can't find them around here but have heard they are very good. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: "David Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:10:56 +1300 Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > > Odd, I have CD-Rs that were burned nearly 6 years ago and are still > > readable by my computers. Surely shome mishtake? > Me too. I have some CD-Rs with my company's archives that are older than > even 7 years. One thing: they are all from well known brands (Philips, > TDK, Verbatim) I wonder if older CD-R discs have long lifespans because they were made a lot better to begin with. Good CD-Rs are becoming harder to find around here as the cheap-n-nasty ones take over the market. People buy the cheap ones without realising that they probably won't last more than a few months. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ _ From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, youll find a range of helpful holiday info here. http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
at wrok at about 1990, we had one of the Yamaha ones that sold for about $15,000 that was the size of s small desk. CD-ROM software and CD-ROMs in general were just coming out then. i still have a few commercial CD-ROMs, just sitting there, including Microsoft's Multimedia Beethoven's 9th. Herb - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 3:40 AM Subject: Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd > I had a CD-R burner for use at work almost that long ago - I think we paid > soething like $7000 for it (including a 1GB local hard drive buffer). But > by the time I was using one for recording my own personal stuff media had > come down in price considerably.
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote: > > > So far (touch wood) I've had no problem with the Memorex > > 8x or 10x I use. They might cost a couple of cents more > > per gigabyte, but they're still dirt cheap - I remember > > when CD-R media cost a couple of bucks each. > > When I recorded my first CD-R discs (ten years ago, save a couple of > months) there was a "standard" quality at $25 per disc and a "extra fine" > quality at $35 per disc. A CD recorder unit cost about $5600. These were > professional audio equipment only, not computer peripherals. I had a CD-R burner for use at work almost that long ago - I think we paid soething like $7000 for it (including a 1GB local hard drive buffer). But by the time I was using one for recording my own personal stuff media had come down in price considerably.
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > > Odd, I have CD-Rs that were burned nearly 6 years ago and are still > > readable by my computers. Surely shome mishtake? > Me too. I have some CD-Rs with my company's archives that are older than > even 7 years. One thing: they are all from well known brands (Philips, > TDK, Verbatim) I wonder if older CD-R discs have long lifespans because they were made a lot better to begin with. Good CD-Rs are becoming harder to find around here as the cheap-n-nasty ones take over the market. People buy the cheap ones without realising that they probably won't last more than a few months. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote: > So far (touch wood) I've had no problem with the Memorex > 8x or 10x I use. They might cost a couple of cents more > per gigabyte, but they're still dirt cheap - I remember > when CD-R media cost a couple of bucks each. When I recorded my first CD-R discs (ten years ago, save a couple of months) there was a "standard" quality at $25 per disc and a "extra fine" quality at $35 per disc. A CD recorder unit cost about $5600. These were professional audio equipment only, not computer peripherals. And by the way, these CD:s still play without problem. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
I've got Photo CD's over 6 years old that have received heavy usage with no ill effects. I've read somewhere that it is best to store photo images on "Gold" CDs. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:24 PM Subject: Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd > > I have had a couple of unreadable CD-Rs, but these have > almost always been bargain-brand no-name blanks.
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
I have had a couple of unreadable CD-Rs, but these have almost always been bargain-brand no-name blanks. So far (touch wood) I've had no problem with the Memorex 8x or 10x I use. They might cost a couple of cents more per gigabyte, but they're still dirt cheap - I remember when CD-R media cost a couple of bucks each.
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Cotty wrote: > > > Odd, I have CD-Rs that were burned nearly 6 years ago and are still > > readable by my computers. Surely shome mishtake? > Me too. I have some CD-Rs with my company's archives that are older than > even 7 years. One thing: they are all from well known brands (Philips, > TDK, Verbatim) > > -- > Best regards > Sylwek Me too, most of my older CD-r's are still readable, but with a newer generation (when CD-R market was booming and prices plummeting) I did have had my share of unreadable CD-R's. The problem is that you know what batch of CD-R's is bad, when it is too late. George
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd was:Re: OT - Re: Scratching LP's ( not so much, since discussion is getting back into Pentax and photography)
Why don't I have these problems with CD-R's? Many of mine are 5+ years now. The only problem I have had was with a batch of store-brand discs that died withing 24 hours of recording, I got rid of those in a hurry. I don't even buy the expensive discs just name brands like Fuji or Imation. Even the audio copies I carry about in the car (why risk someone stealing the originals?) are still good despite an environment that peels the label off in a year or so. I can not imagine any real problem with CD-R's stored in an archival manner (cool, dry, dark, stable boxes, etc.). Tapes will print though in a matter of a few years and become unreadable. In any case your CD's only have to last until the new media becomes the norm and then you will need to transfer the information to that media while you still have a CD reader available. It is also interesting that when I have gotten a bad CD, like one checked out from the library, I have always been able to copy it to the computer hard drive and make a playable copy from there. I think that CD-R's are far more reliable than some say. No archive method is truly permanent, they all require continued maintenance of some sort. -- george de fockert wrote: If you make family pictures now, to be able to show to your kids after a few years, do it on film. Or copy your CD-R's every year to a new set/ or medium. I would not be surprised if computer tapes are a more reliable archive medium than CD-R's -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd was:Re: OT - Re: Scratching LP's ( not so much, since discussion is getting back into Pen
> > People do not yet realize that their inkjet printouts will be faded in a few > years, and > their CD-R are no longer readable, even on perfect working CD-R readers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard it all before. But I've *still* got 5-year-old inkjet prints up on my wall that look a lot better than many of the photographic prints in my archives, and I can read data off my nearly ten-year-old CD-Rs without any problem. It's nowhere near as dire a situation as the doomsayers would have us believe. And it's a lot easier (and cheaper) for me to get a repeat digital print (saved after cropping and spotting) than the alternative.
Re: false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd was:Re: OT - Re: Scratching LP's ( not so much, since discussion is getting back int
On 19 Nov 2003 at 23:49, george de fockert wrote: > Pressed CD's have a lifetime of decades, but CD-R CD-RW etc. have a lifetime of > months to maybe some years, depending on the used dye, and storage method. But > who knows what type of dye is used in the CD-R they bought, let alone what the > expected lifetime will be. Some of my old pressed CDs are suffering from fungal infestations so are starting to become unplayable however my very first CDRs (cut using the first Philips burner, a monster of a device, I can't even remember the model no) have all been stored in the dark in a low humidity environment and they read just fine (I have to refer back to them regularly). Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
false comparison lp/cd versus film/ccd was:Re: OT - Re: Scratching LP's ( not so much, since discussion is getting back into Pentax and photography)
Hi, just a warning to all of you digital shooters, CD replaced LP because it was for most people an improvement in : 1 handling 2 sound quality 3 longlivity CCD/CMOS will replace film because it is for most people an improvement in : 1 handling/processing 2 image degradation (is not relevant for those 10*15 prints) 3 memory loss. People do not yet realize that their inkjet printouts will be faded in a few years, and their CD-R are no longer readable, even on perfect working CD-R readers. Pressed CD's have a lifetime of decades, but CD-R CD-RW etc. have a lifetime of months to maybe some years, depending on the used dye, and storage method. But who knows what type of dye is used in the CD-R they bought, let alone what the expected lifetime will be. If you make family pictures now, to be able to show to your kids after a few years, do it on film. Or copy your CD-R's every year to a new set/ or medium. I would not be surprised if computer tapes are a more reliable archive medium than CD-R's George
