Digital Preservation is Costly (duh)

[Kino]

It's all the fault of the French...

 

[doughowk]

I suspect hardly anybody will make the long-term commitment to preserve their digital images digitally for sake of posterity or even ancestors. What will remain are those uploaded to the Internet, whether gratuitously archived or saved by some service. Quality of those images will be of secondary importance.

 

[Alden]

Why do you assume that future historians will somehow be wiser than us?

If mankind is in a downward spiral of "dumbing down" then they will be even stupider. Based on the premise that digital preservation is both costly and ultimately futile, chances are that even if "future historians" do exist - they won't have any original source materials either from our times or times subsequent to research.

Stupider yes, but more efficient, the great goal of technology.

 

[Lee Shively]

I find my dog to be the perfect subject to test new lenses, cameras and film. She also doesn't complain when I don't print any of the negatives.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Future historians will have to have a bullshit detector on all of their findings too. A lot of the old records of events, sounds, and images are not changeable. A digital file of any kind you can alter however much you want. What is real and true anymore?
I'm glad that discovering how expensive data management is, is being made public. I just wish on a grander scale. I have no digital files except the scans I make of prints and keep for a future web site. That's it, and I'm happy. Everything on my computer can be erased at any time, and I would not care. There is a real sense of freedom to that.

Don't have a dog, but I do have a few bunny shots that I'm proud of.

- Thomas

 

[bdial]

Preserving "analog" information on computers on a commercial scale is my day job. It's not cheap, but I'd question the figure quoted in the article. I'm slightly curious to know how they derived the figure.
Maintaining material in an unchangeble form is possible, and is standard practice in many applications, though that doesn't keep things from being changed when they are copied from the un-alterable media. However, any sound, image or document is alterable if someone has sufficient reason and skills to do it. The major difference is the tools available on computers make doing such things much easier.

For individuals, preserving our digital data comprehensively is a pretty daunting task.

-Barry

 

[colrehogan]

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine a few years ago. She wanted to save money on film, as she tended to shoot at least one roll a film a day while on holidays. I gave her the best advice on what digital camera to purchase, but I also included the caveat that she is now entering the data management business.

"Is that something you want to do for the rest of your life? As soon as you stop, something will degrade, corrupt or otherwise render your priceless memories useless or unreadable."

Well, she didn't like the incremental expense of paying for film and development. Undeterred, she purchased a digital camera and has thousands of digital pictures of vital family events, trips and so on. Years later, she has spent hundreds and thousands of dollars to manage all of those pictures. Software, several back-up hard drives, extra storage cards, DVD-RW discs and a separate computer as well as countless hours being frustrated (I know, I'm her personal tech support line).

She now complains about of the cost of managing those files.

File management and the continuous cost of having to upgrade software and hardware and poor archival media are precisely the reason I decided to stick with film.

 

[Colin Corneau]

The term I've heard used for it is "digital dark age".

There is enormous volume, but how much of it can realistically be expected to actually exist in a mere century?

 

[JBrunner]

For the feeble cost of the family having payed the tiniest bit of attention over the years, I am printing negatives my grandfather shot, eighty years ago, to show his great grandson. If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.

 

[Kino]

Preserving "analog" information on computers on a commercial scale is my day job. It's not cheap, but I'd question the figure quoted in the article. I'm slightly curious to know how they derived the figure.
Maintaining material in an unchangeble form is possible, and is standard practice in many applications, though that doesn't keep things from being changed when they are copied from the un-alterable media. However, any sound, image or document is alterable if someone has sufficient reason and skills to do it. The major difference is the tools available on computers make doing such things much easier.

For individuals, preserving our digital data comprehensively is a pretty daunting task.

-Barry

Barry,

It is mind boggling just how many ways an image or sound file can be unintentionally altered when you go beyond bit-by-bit migration of "files as written" to new media.

I'd like to expand on this, but it seems we are skirting the mission statement of this site and getting into areas best left to other sites.

Any suggestions as to where we can take this conversation?

There is a site called Nitrateville.com that deals with silent film appreciation and it has a section on restoration that would be happy to host the discussion, I am sure.

Let me know if you've interest in taking it there.

*edit*

Here; if you want to discuss this topic, go here: http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.php?p=230#230

You will have to register.

 

[vet173]

Why do you assume that future historians will somehow be wiser than us?

If mankind is in a downward spiral of "dumbing down" then they will be even stupider. Based on the premise that digital preservation is both costly and ultimately futile, chances are that even if "future historians" do exist - they won't have any original source materials either from our times or times subsequent to research.

I think future historian will do the same thing as past and present ones do. LIE, oops I'm sorry i meant op-ed opinions that reflect their own personal agenda. I know my description of current events wouldn't be the same as president shrub.

 

[copake_ham]

I think future historian will do the same thing as past and present ones do. LIE, oops I'm sorry i meant op-ed opinions that reflect their own personal agenda. I know my description of current events wouldn't be the same as president shrub.

I'm not sure why you confuse historians with op-ed writers who opine on current events?

I obtained a B.A. in History a long time ago and worked for a while on a Ph.D. before coming to my senses and moving to more practical (i.e. employable) areas of study. Having worked with original source materials - I think it unlikely that there will be much available from our era - at least in a format that will survive. While "copies" of original sources can substitute - the reliability is diminished precisely because veracity can be compromised in the copying process.

 

[Kino]

Looks like the nickel is starting to drop elsewhere, only they fail to see the obvious remedy...

Dead Link Removed

 

[David Brown]

... only they fail to see the obvious remedy...

You mean: making prints?

 

[WarEaglemtn]

The Real cost of digital compared to film?

The link below should get you to an interesting article on the costs of storage for film and digital in Hollywood. A major difference. Hollywood might be able to afford it but even at that the cost difference is staggering.


http://www.computerworld.com/action...icleBasic&articleId=9061099&intsrc=hm_ts_head



Digital crisis: Motion pictures may fade to black
Fewer than half of all feature films made before 1950 have survived
By Dian Schaffhauser


February 8, 2008 (Computerworld) Current storage technologies may have a reputation for being plentiful and cheap, but not necessarily in Hollywood, where a recent study warns that the annual cost of archiving a digital film is 11 times that of storing celluloid film.

According to "The Digital Dilemma," a report recently released by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, digital film storage costs $12,510 per year, compared with $1,059 for celluloid. More dramatically, source materials -- those outtakes and audio recordings that often make up bonus content for special edition products -- cost 429 times as much to store, a whopping $208,500 per year for digital materials vs. $486 for film.

The report's authors state the data explosion could turn into digital movie extinction, unless the studios push the development of storage standards and data management practices that will guarantee long-term access of their content

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day War

so what? same problems different materials

many artists, photographers and other creative types never correctly address these issues

Ray

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Threads merged.

 

[jpeets]

Am I the only one to spot the Really Bad News in the NY Times article ....

"But over the next couple of decades, archivists reason, the conversion of theaters to digital projection will sharply reduce the overall demand for film, eventually making it a sunset market for the main manufacturers, Kodak, Fujifilm and Agfa. " (Agfa?)

As I understand it, much of the development costs, and the profitability of colour film, derive from its use in the motion picture industry. So, once they go digital, we're pretty much screwed, no?

 

[Snapshot]

Well, you are talking about a couple of decades before a transition to digital projection is complete. Until then, enjoy using film. Anyway, there will be players like Ilford who do not depend on the motion picture film market for their revenues.

 

[JBrunner]

... will sharply reduce the overall demand for film, eventually making it a sunset market for the main manufacturers, Kodak, Fujifilm and Agfa. " (Agfa?)

This shows you about how well the average journalist is plugged in to what they write. With notable exceptions, they are now mostly regurgitators, and spinners. Frick. Agfa... I heard the Seebold Invisible Camera Company was having trouble with it's transition. Seems they are having issues with carving the chip out of mahogany.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've
Got till it's gone"

Joni Mitchell (Big Yellow Taxi)

 

[Kino]

I got a copy of the Academy report and it basically suggests that, for the foreseeable future, you should GO OUT TO FILM to make sure your images remain on the Planet Earth.

Radical!

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I got a copy of the Academy report and it basically suggests that, for the foreseeable future, you should GO OUT TO FILM to make sure your images remain on the Planet Earth.

Radical!

Is there a device that will go out to film with good quality available on the market? I cannot find anything on the net but maybe I don't know what its called.

 

[jpeets]

This shows you about how well the average journalist is plugged in to what they write. With notable exceptions, they are now mostly regurgitators, and spinners. Frick.

Ain't that the truth. From what I can tell, "journalists" (hacks?) increasingly are generalists, and one I know has covered fashion, crime, sports, arts and human interest ...you can imagine the depth of insight there!

And related to our interests, our local papers also have some journalsists who take their own photos - and the results are predictable.:rolleyes:

 

[jpeets]

Well, you are talking about a couple of decades before a transition to digital projection is complete. Until then, enjoy using film. Anyway, there will be players like Ilford who do not depend on the motion picture film market for their revenues.

As I understand, there is a lot of pressure to go digital. There is a notable cost of filmstocks and physical distribution. The next big thing will be the electronic distribution (i.e. download) of films to theaters.

I am worried that the volume of film used by the industry will decline faster and farther than anyone imagines.

Yes, thank goodness for Ilford, but what of color materials? I have already started to lay in a supply of film in the freezer ....... paranoid?