| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2007 05:51:53 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Saying that there won't be a means of reading current data files in the future is ridculous. Floppy and zip drives don't even count or matter. How many digital images can you fit on a floppy disk? Maybe 1/4th? Zip disks kinda went the way of the dodo bird when CD's came out. As far as CD->DVD->Bluray/HDDVD goes, they are ALL backwards compatible. And I'd imagine that anything developed later on will also be backwards compatible. |
Like the floppy & zip drives were supported ?
Or DAT ?
or 8 track ?
Or RLL harddrives ?
Or all the other various formats that people thought would always be around.
Point being, the entire history of storage media is against your current gamble that CD/DVD/blu-ray/HD-DVD are 'backwards compatible'
blu-ray & HD-DVD aren't even sideways compatible unless you buy a dual format player. You can place your bets now on which one is actually going to exist in 5 years from now too.
When they stop being used, there is a short (few year) window of opportunity to easily migrate. Most people don't. Most people don't even back up at all, never mind maintain those archives, verify they are readable and move to new formats. Thinking that is somehow going to magically change in the future is what is ridiculous.
Remember, these are the self-same companies that shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of VHS, or tape, or vinyl, or mini-disk, to go to DVD. Sony has been around for a while. Even within that one company they keep churning out incompatible formats.
You could pretty much bet that any 2D optical, circular storage format as large as a CD will not exist in 20 years and will look about as sensible as a wax cylinder or vinyl record does to you. The odds are entirely in favour of that format at such a large size not existing.
Just like all the formats that were in use before you were born. If you are talking about archival storage of photographs, we should be thinking in generational terms. These images are the images you'd like your grandchildren to see, if you care about any sort of family history or the wider historical archive. Formats that fade in a few decades aren't going to cut it.
Doing the rounds just now. MTBF claims exaggerated more than 15x
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 18:04:44. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 05:57:33 PM · #77 |
with electronic backups there is always that latent worry of the day EMP warfare is put into action...
the day i found out a 'perfect' solution to anything is the day i won't have to worry about working anymore ;}
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 17:57:49.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:03:51 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
In 2100 when the chemicals are not sold as "photography" supplies, you'll have to be a chemist to figure it out. Soooo... :-) |
In 2100, you won't be able to get chemicals, either because they're bad for the environment, or because they are some sort of terrorist threat. :-( |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:05:32 PM · #79 |
| YOu can easily do an off-site backup of your digital files, or backup at several sites, but you only have one original negative. A fire will damage both your disk and your negative. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:05:54 PM · #80 |
Without a doubt, data archiving in the digital age is currently a morass. But presenting this as a new problem unique to digital is somewhat misleading. It's true that most folks pay little or no attention to data archiving, and they are bound to get burnt. The same is true, however, of people that store their old slides or color negatives in basements, attics, or other suboptimally controlled environs. The damage may not be as fast, nor as complete as is loss of electronic data, but it surely has resulted in the loss of photographic memories for many, many people.
Back to digital storage, what's really needed is inexpensive, stable, write-once storage in the terabyte size range. The growth in digital photography in the past decade has outstripped the capability of all common media to provide adequately-sized, economical alternatives for long-term archiving of images. Not only are files much larger, but the amount of files generated is tremendous. Part of the solution relies on us being good editors. Is there really a need to archive 100% of what we shoot? Probably 10-15% of what we shoot will find its way into print or onto electronic display media. Why do we persist in archiving the good, the bad and the ugly? I'm guilty of this myself. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:08:45 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Back to digital storage, what's really needed is inexpensive, stable, write-once storage in the terabyte size range. |
Inexpensive
Stable
Terabyte-size
...pick any two :) |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:14:44 PM · #82 |
oddly enough - so far - knock on wood - the only data i have 'lost' has been a backup CD that got tossed by accident. i tend to back up everything - but with negatives it wasn't any different. unfortunately it contained photos from a very productive day of shooting...
also all of my BW negatives survived a house fire. the storage sleeves and binders they were stored in all melted together - but the film itself - for the most part - is pretty much intact. i've even printed a few of them off since - and used one of the negatives for a challenge entry. oh yeah - the fire was sparked in a wall next to my bedroom, so my stuff took more of a hit than a good part of the rest of the place.
sometimes people worry too much.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 18:17:20.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:16:31 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Saying that there won't be a means of reading current data files in the future is ridculous. |
The point is that digital media that is popular today will be unreadable in about 20-30 years from now, because it will be replaced by newer technology. One needs to be concerned with transferring older backups to newer media, in order to stay current (the thought of having to copy hundreds of CDs that I have to some newer format makes me cringe).
But let's suppose that I am super diligent, and maintain my backups to current tech media, and make all due effort to ensure that my photographs last my lifetime. Will my children be as diligent, when I am old or dead? I don't think there is any way of knowing this for sure, and, most probably, they will have their own lives to live, and won't have time to deal with the old man's photo collection. So, there is a very high chance that my digital archives are not going to reach my grand children: by then, it's possible that (1) media format will be outdated, (2) media itself will age and disintegrate, and (3) the file formats become unreadable.
In case of film negatives, there is no need to update them to current tech. They will age, alright, and may not arrive in perfect conditions, but I have a lot more confidence in them surviving a few generations than the digital images.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:24:08 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
But let's suppose that I am super diligent, and maintain my backups to current tech media, and make all due effort to ensure that my photographs last my lifetime. Will my children be as diligent, when I am old or dead? I don't think there is any way of knowing this for sure, and, most probably, they will have their own lives to live, and won't have time to deal with the old man's photo collection. So, there is a very high chance that my digital archives are not going to reach my grand children: by then, it's possible that (1) media format will be outdated, (2) media itself will age and disintegrate, and (3) the file formats become unreadable.
In case of film negatives, there is no need to update them to current tech. They will age, alright, and may not arrive in perfect conditions, but I have a lot more confidence in them surviving a few generations than the digital images. |
Most of us don't have negatives from our fathers, grandfathers, etc. Most of us are lucky enough to have a few prints of great-gramma in her 20's. Film deteriorates quickly when not stored appropriately.
Sorry to say it, but if no one cares, the memories are gone no matter how much you cared for them.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:37:05 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Most of us don't have negatives from our fathers, grandfathers, etc. Most of us are lucky enough to have a few prints of great-gramma in her 20's. Film deteriorates quickly when not stored appropriately.
Sorry to say it, but if no one cares, the memories are gone no matter how much you cared for them. |
Well, we have photos older than 60 years in our archives. They were *not* cared for properly, and many of them are stained, crinkled, and faded, but they are there, legible and usable. I'm pretty sure that the film I have stored in sleeves will last a couple of generations, unless it burns in a house fire. I'm afraid I cannot say the same about my digital images.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:38:27 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by lament:
You don't need chemicals to scan a bunch of negatives. |
You assume the film has been developed. :-) |
The film is trash if its been sitting 100 years in a box. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:41:57 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Saying that there won't be a means of reading current data files in the future is ridculous. |
The point is that digital media that is popular today will be unreadable in about 20-30 years from now, because it will be replaced by newer technology. One needs to be concerned with transferring older backups to newer media, in order to stay current (the thought of having to copy hundreds of CDs that I have to some newer format makes me cringe).
But let's suppose that I am super diligent, and maintain my backups to current tech media, and make all due effort to ensure that my photographs last my lifetime. Will my children be as diligent, when I am old or dead? I don't think there is any way of knowing this for sure, and, most probably, they will have their own lives to live, and won't have time to deal with the old man's photo collection. So, there is a very high chance that my digital archives are not going to reach my grand children: by then, it's possible that (1) media format will be outdated, (2) media itself will age and disintegrate, and (3) the file formats become unreadable.
In case of film negatives, there is no need to update them to current tech. They will age, alright, and may not arrive in perfect conditions, but I have a lot more confidence in them surviving a few generations than the digital images. |
I fail to see the day that even a hobbyist not graduated high school programmer couldnt copy the JPEG Specification from a technology encyclopedia. Use it in a current language and read the files.
Hell the C Programming language is officially 38 years old in itsself. And while there are other langauegs in use there are a couple million people world wide that know it or a variant (such as Object Oriented C).
I write in a programming language you cant train for in most colleges in america. Object Pascal, I taught myself. Most consider it obsolete but alot of europe still uses and new compilers are avaliable for it.
So for atleast 10 more years i will be able to write a reader for certain image types.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 18:44:17. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:50:56 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Like the floppy & zip drives were supported ?
Or DAT ?
or 8 track ?
Or RLL harddrives ?
Or all the other various formats that people thought would always be around.
Point being, the entire history of storage media is against your current gamble that CD/DVD/blu-ray/HD-DVD are 'backwards compatible'
blu-ray & HD-DVD aren't even sideways compatible unless you buy a dual format player. You can place your bets now on which one is actually going to exist in 5 years from now too.
When they stop being used, there is a short (few year) window of opportunity to easily migrate. Most people don't. Most people don't even back up at all, never mind maintain those archives, verify they are readable and move to new formats. Thinking that is somehow going to magically change in the future is what is ridiculous.
Remember, these are the self-same companies that shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of VHS, or tape, or vinyl, or mini-disk, to go to DVD. Sony has been around for a while. Even within that one company they keep churning out incompatible formats.
You could pretty much bet that any 2D optical, circular storage format as large as a CD will not exist in 20 years and will look about as sensible as a wax cylinder or vinyl record does to you. The odds are entirely in favour of that format at such a large size not existing.
Just like all the formats that were in use before you were born. If you are talking about archival storage of photographs, we should be thinking in generational terms. These images are the images you'd like your grandchildren to see, if you care about any sort of family history or the wider historical archive. Formats that fade in a few decades aren't going to cut it. |
I completely understand where you're coming from here, but I'm not so much talking about all the failed formats that you're talking about. What about IDE and SATA hard drives? They have been tried and true and have been around for years. Now are they going to be replaced? Of course they will, but how hard would it be to connect one to an external drive enclosure and use it that way? Now your next arguement would be that USB or firewire might not be around either. But think about it in the way of the serial port. The laptop I have now was brand new in 2006 and still has a serial port. USB is huge, many accesories and peripherals use it. Will USB get replaced? Of course, but not immediately and most, if not all, people won't be caught off guard. There might be the errant person who said oh $%&* when he found his serial mouse wouldn't work anymore, but the vast majority have made the switch. I also understand that bluray and hddvd are not sideways compatible (yet), but you can still take either player and play a dvd or cd on them. Which format will win out? I have no idea, that is something that needs time to work itself out. As far as CD and DVD goes? Those formats are pretty solid right now. None of this is going to say that they'll be around forever, but they will be for a good amount of time.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:53:04 PM · #89 |
At any rate, as I understand after doing some preliminary search on the subject, if you actually are interested in image archival then there's NO accepted way of doing it digitally over a period of decades to centuries, simply because computers and associated storage media are a new technology that hasn't yet been proven particularly time-worthy, clay punchcards aside :)
With black-and-white film and prints, in principle, it can be done, although it requires proper processing, handling and storage conditions.
On the other hand, digital color photos are probably a better bet for archival than color film or prints, which are widely considered to be short-lived.
[edit]Message edited by author 2007-03-19 18:58:13. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:53:16 PM · #90 |
Hell CD's are 20 years old atleast at this point. They havent been mainstreem or affordable that long but hell my 4x86 had a 4x CD-rom drive. I know they had Compact Discs in the mide to late 80's.
EDIT - Infact CD's hit the market 25 years ago.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 18:54:13. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:54:16 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I fail to see the day that even a hobbyist not graduated high school programmer couldnt copy the JPEG Specification from a technology encyclopedia. Use it in a current language and read the files. |
This addresses the easiest part of the puzzle. And this is only true for JPEG, but not for NEF and PSD files.
Are you also suggesting building a CD-ROM reader from scrap metal? :) If so, then whoever builds it is likely to find out that most CD-ROMs are already unreadable by that time. Some of the CD-ROMs that *I* recorded about 8 years ago are already unreadable by today's drives, and those are from a reputable brand (Mitsui used to be highly esteemed back then).
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:58:19 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Before this devolves in to a film versus digital screed. (Too late?) I don't think there is any reason why you can't shoot both, and remember that even if you shoot in film that doesn't prevent you from scanning your negatives or slides to be able to mess around with them in PS. |
I agree.... I still shoot film (although it's a LOT less then in the past) and have a real neg scanner (not a flat bed). Been working my way thru childhood slides from the late 50's forward and yet to start most of my own negs - I doubt I could do the same in 40+ years with RAW files :-)
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 06:59:59 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I fail to see the day that even a hobbyist not graduated high school programmer couldnt copy the JPEG Specification from a technology encyclopedia. Use it in a current language and read the files. |
This addresses the easiest part of the puzzle. And this is only true for JPEG, but not for NEF and PSD files.
Are you also suggesting building a CD-ROM reader from scrap metal? :) If so, then whoever builds it is likely to find out that most CD-ROMs are already unreadable by that time. Some of the CD-ROMs that *I* recorded about 8 years ago are already unreadable by today's drives, and those are from a reputable brand (Mitsui used to be highly esteemed back then). |
Heres the thing, When your photofile gets old and crusty dont you run down the street and buy a new one?
Im not gonnstare at my DVD collection for the next 50 years and say uh one day... i uh... shall...uh.... read those... and uh... put them on... uh... somethign new.
Im the kind of person that makes multiple copies. 2 In house on harddrives. And 1 that is stored elsewhere typically on optical discs.
Im not gonna keep the files on an out of date system if i can do soemthing about it. I DONT OWN A SINGLE VHS TAPE. All my home movies are stored in uncompressed AVI's spanned onto optical discs. WHen a better way to store them comes theyll be moved. God knows DV-AVI compresed is 13GB an hour.
Right now i dont even use CD's mainly because it would take a single Dual Layer DVD to hold a years worth of photos. I typically use CD's for burning shit i cant email or put on my FTP server.
I have expereinced 3 major hard drive failures with up to 75% loss of my data but i have managed to keep 99% of my pictures and 20% of my movies. This has pressed me into backing up more often which will inadvertently probly cauise me to keep updating media.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 19:02:21. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:04:39 PM · #94 |
after reading everything in the thread ;)
i like film - it makes my images 1.5-2x in sale price ...
i like digital - damn fast & easy
if i was full time (retired) photographer i would use more film
as it is it is a royal pain to purchace all the chems mix , pull out the enlarger dust it off etc .. as much fun as it is i can neither afford to do it often(time & money) ...
data storage .. my brother has our family photos / some silver on glass some tintype / some nitrate/ beautiful memory's of people we don't know ,some dead before 1900... / though very few images (earliest images 1880's)
will my data last till 2120 ? possibly / but probably not ..
to much legacy in any case .. (who needs a zillion bad picures of glass spheres anyway ??)
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:07:14 PM · #95 |
we *could* debate all day as to whether various physical media formats will be readable with future hardware, or whether the data recorded on them will survive. It's a moot point. Unlike physical media (film, prints) which are intended to be preserved without generational copying, digital files by their nature make copying easy. Like storage of physical media, it's the user's responsibility to migrate the digital files to current media. Many will fail in this task, and just like with film & prints, will be faced with degraded or outright lost images.
Let's temporarily put the media question aside, and look at file formats. The most common image format, JPEG, has been around for decades, and shows no signs of being overtaken. Given this multi-decade history, including a tremendous volume of scientific work, it's an absolute certainty that even 50 years from now, JPEG will be understood. The various proprietary RAW formats are another matter, IMO. While many of us regard our RAW files as our digital negatives, we're going to, at some point, face translating them to another format for fear of losing access to them. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:08:14 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
This addresses the easiest part of the puzzle. And this is only true for JPEG, but not for NEF and PSD files. |
I don't think NEF and PSD file formats are going anywhere for a while. For example, MS Word has been using the *.doc file format for I don't even know how long. Photoshop files have been *.psd for as long as I can remember. *.nef files are relatively new, but I don't understand why nikon would bother to change that little file extension. I can take an MS Word document I wrote in 2nd grade and open it on my laptop today (Office 2003). You can't open an Office 2003 file on a machine with a much older version of Office, but why would you want to? Hell, you can get an emulator to run the original Nintendo games on your computer and that file format (for lack of a better term) has been LONG updated. As far as CD's go, I have several CDs that I got when my family got our first computer in 1995 and they still work just like new. CD recording technology has also come a long way since then.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:08:48 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by ralph:
after reading everything in the thread ;)
i like film - it makes my images 1.5-2x in sale price ...
i like digital - damn fast & easy
if i was full time (retired) photographer i would use more film
as it is it is a royal pain to purchace all the chems mix , pull out the enlarger dust it off etc .. as much fun as it is i can neither afford to do it often(time & money) ...
data storage .. my brother has our family photos / some silver on glass some tintype / some nitrate/ beautiful memory's of people we don't know ,some dead before 1900... / though very few images (earliest images 1880's)
will my data last till 2120 ? possibly / but probably not ..
to much legacy in any case .. (who needs a zillion bad picures of glass spheres anyway ??) |
If i died id have to say some of my photo's just friends and family i would want to survive so long as someone remembers me. I guess after everyone has forgotten its no longer that important.
I had much thought into that this morning after reading an article on a woman who's 23 and knows she will die of huntington's disease if nothing else kills her sooner. She could start symptoms around 37 or sooner. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:10:51 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by agenkin:
This addresses the easiest part of the puzzle. And this is only true for JPEG, but not for NEF and PSD files. |
I don't think NEF and PSD file formats are going anywhere for a while. For example, MS Word has been using the *.doc file format for I don't even know how long. Photoshop files have been *.psd for as long as I can remember. *.nef files are relatively new, but I don't understand why nikon would bother to change that little file extension. I can take an MS Word document I wrote in 2nd grade and open it on my laptop today (Office 2003). You can't open an Office 2003 file on a machine with a much older version of Office, but why would you want to? Hell, you can get an emulator to run the original Nintendo games on your computer and that file format (for lack of a better term) has been LONG updated. As far as CD's go, I have several CDs that I got when my family got our first computer in 1995 and they still work just like new. CD recording technology has also come a long way since then. |
Your are slightly missguided my friend.
The DOC format while widley cracked down is still a propritary format.
The mainstream DOC format got replaced with an XML version called DOCx. It will be the default format in Office 07. The DOCx format is only readable in Office 2003 or newer and for Office 03 you have to have the new plugin.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 19:13:11. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:15:32 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
we *could* debate all day as to whether various physical media formats will be readable with future hardware, or whether the data recorded on them will survive. It's a moot point. Unlike physical media (film, prints) which are intended to be preserved without generational copying, digital files by their nature make copying easy. Like storage of physical media, it's the user's responsibility to migrate the digital files to current media. Many will fail in this task, and just like with film & prints, will be faced with degraded or outright lost images.
Let's temporarily put the media question aside, and look at file formats. The most common image format, JPEG, has been around for decades, and shows no signs of being overtaken. Given this multi-decade history, including a tremendous volume of scientific work, it's an absolute certainty that even 50 years from now, JPEG will be understood. The various proprietary RAW formats are another matter, IMO. While many of us regard our RAW files as our digital negatives, we're going to, at some point, face translating them to another format for fear of losing access to them. |
Well while i support the fact that the JPEG standard will be on file at the library of congress and easy to write a new program to read it.
Jpeg group formed 20 years ago. Released a spec 15 years ago. WHich was approved and standardized 13 years ago.
Hardly been decades. Not even 2 yet. SOrry i just had to beat up on you i hope they dotn call that a personal attack... oh they do... darn!
REST IN PEACE JPEG
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 19:16:44. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 07:17:49 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
>DOC is just an extension the file format has changed alot. A .Doc from Office 2007 using backwards compatibility measures will not read in Office 6.0. |
Right, I understand that (and I thought I put it in my post). But can you take an Office 6.0 file and open it up on Office 03 or even 07? Yes, I know you can. It has to go through a converter, but it is still possible and easy to do. I doubt Microsoft would stop putting this converter in it's programs.
|
|
