| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Best medium for archiving video
I realize that this question has an answer which keeps changing, as new
media become old media. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? -- Steve Holt INNER MUSIC Music Creation & Production http://www.inner-music.com http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
Steve Holt wrote:
I realize that this question has an answer which keeps changing, as new media become old media. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? Kinescope it, then pull separations. Not cheap. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Steve Holt wrote: I realize that this question has an answer which keeps changing, as new media become old media. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? Kinescope it, then pull separations. Not cheap. --scott I'm assuming DVD is not recommended for archival purposes... Steve Holt INNER MUSIC Music Creation & Production http://www.inner-music.com http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
Steve Holt wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Steve Holt wrote: I realize that this question has an answer which keeps changing, as new media become old media. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? Kinescope it, then pull separations. Not cheap. I'm assuming DVD is not recommended for archival purposes... Dunno yet. DVD-R is definitely not recommended. DVD pressings ought to be a lot better but I don't think there is any real word in yet. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Steve Holt wrote: "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message Steve Holt wrote: I realize that this question has an answer which keeps changing, as new media become old media. Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? Kinescope it, then pull separations. Not cheap. I'm assuming DVD is not recommended for archival purposes... Dunno yet. DVD-R is definitely not recommended. DVD pressings ought to be a lot better but I don't think there is any real word in yet. --scott -- Is there a specific problem linked to DVD-R, or is it simply the issue of future extinction of the playback technology? -- Steve Holt INNER MUSIC Music Creation & Production http://www.inner-music.com http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:00:00 -0700, Steve Holt wrote
(in message ): Nevertheless, I thought I'd ask - What is currently regarded as the best medium for archiving video? -----------------------------snip---------------------------- The major studios have been huddling over this for years, trying to stop their films from disintegrating. One very viable solution is 4K scans, saving everything as raw data files to computer hard drives and tape backups. But even High Def video only takes up 1080 x 1556 pixels, so that's quite a bit smaller than 2K files (which are 13 megs a frame, give or take). Standard def video would just be a fraction of that. Still, the only archival format we really have more than 50 years experience with is film. Film can last a long, long time, provided it's stored at a reasonable temperature and low tempereature. The real problem is choice of format. There are lots of videotapes out there that survive, but the equipment to play them back is very, very hard to find. For example, I know of one studio that archived thousands of NTSC video masters on the IVC 9000 2" helical format; that company went bust in the late 1980s, and the machines are nearly impossible to find now. So that's a real problem: your masters are just fine, but none of your machines hold up 20, 30, or 40 years later. --MFW |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Marc Wielage" wrote
The real problem is choice of format. There are lots of videotapes out there that survive, but the equipment to play them back is very, very hard to find. For example, I know of one studio that archived thousands of NTSC video masters on the IVC 9000 2" helical format; that company went bust in the late 1980s, and the machines are nearly impossible to find now. So that's a real problem: your masters are just fine, but none of your machines hold up 20, 30, or 40 years later. At the moment the best archive format is probably tape so you should just keep it on the DV tapes that it was shot on. As far as new technology goes you just have to keep transferring your archives onto new mediums every time a new one seems to have become a standard. Anthony Gosnell |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Steve Holt" wrote: I'm assuming DVD is not recommended for archival purposes... Steve Holt INNER MUSIC Music Creation & Production http://www.inner-music.com http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt Archival purposes generally require the material to be uncompressed, so you would only get a couple of seconds onto one DVD. The DVD-Video format compresses the video quite dramatically, so this is only acceptable as access media. Larger archives use digital linear tape formats such as DLT. W |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
MikeK wrote:
Assuming also that all the oxide hasn't flaked off in 50 years. Last I read, Sony claimed a shelf life of 20 years on videotapes before noticeable playback degradation, and that was when stored optimally (tails out, low humidity, exercised once a year). This is true, although it's interesting to see how some of the old video stuff has lasted and how it hasn't. I have seen some particular brands of U-Matic tape just fall apart, to the point where oxide falls out of the cartridge if you bang it against the table. On the other hand, I have seen some early 2" Quad stuff that has lasted surprisingly well. As a photographer, I run into this "archival" stuff all the time. People think BW film and prints are "archival" because they're still around after 100 or so years, totally ignoring the fact that they mostly don't look half as good as they did originally. The thing is that good B&W work _can_ be archival and it can last a century without significant degradation. Cheap mass-produced prints on RC paper probably won't, but if you're willing to put the effort into doing it right, there's no reason good fibre-based prints and B&W negatives shouldn't last a century or two. The metallic silver image is extremely stable, and that stability is the whole point. It doesn't fade, it doesn't react with anything in the air, and if the material is clean (and has NO residual hypo), there's not much to make it degrade other than actual breakdown of the gelatin. The advantage of digital is not being able to store the image on one medium forever, it's being able to keep it alive by moving it nondestructively to another medium thus extending it's life. That requires work. I figure transferring my stuff every 20 years is worthwhile. If it's too much trouble, that's yet another form of editing. The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it? I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned out to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... MikeK wrote: there's no reason good fibre-based prints and B&W negatives shouldn't last a century or two. The metallic silver image is extremely stable, and that stability is the whole point. It doesn't fade, it doesn't react with anything in the air, and if the material is clean (and has NO residual hypo), there's not much to make it degrade other than actual breakdown of the gelatin. Actually, not quite true. Silver is attacked by the sulphurs in our air, that's why fine art BW printers selenium- or gold-tone prints as a final step. (I use selenium) Platinum and palladium are much more inert, but unfortunately, require contact printing. And as for "last a century or two," just like the audio and video media, there will be some slow degradation, and frankly, no one knows how much. It's only been in the 20th century that folks realized how to properly process the materials for longevity, and even that's a moving target: in the late 80s Ilford published new archival procedures that flew in the face of "accepted practices." All creative activities that rely on technology (like painting or recording) are working with the materials before all the facts are known. The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it? I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned out to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important? Again, another form of editing. Frankly, I think we have way to much **** hanging aroundg, and if I let my wife edit the photos for the albums, we need twice as many albums as necessary. But we're talking about nearly-perfect preservation that requires occasional updating, versus something that will last quite a while, but slowly AND surely, will disappear. I'm not arguing about "best media," I like film and shoot it for personal pleasure (and use digital for paying jobs), but I'm taking my slides and negatives (and old photos) and scanning them as best I can for preservation. One way of preserving things is by minimizing handling, yet another good reason for digital media. Those valuable originals can stay in the dark, or frozen, or whatever, and the CDs and DVDs can be catalogued, multiple copies (one for storage, one for handling), etc. I see this as the best way to deal with all fragile media. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... MikeK wrote: there's no reason good fibre-based prints and B&W negatives shouldn't last a century or two. The metallic silver image is extremely stable, and that stability is the whole point. It doesn't fade, it doesn't react with anything in the air, and if the material is clean (and has NO residual hypo), there's not much to make it degrade other than actual breakdown of the gelatin. Actually, not quite true. Silver is attacked by the sulphurs in our air, that's why fine art BW printers selenium- or gold-tone prints as a final step. (I use selenium) Platinum and palladium are much more inert, but unfortunately, require contact printing. And as for "last a century or two," just like the audio and video media, there will be some slow degradation, and frankly, no one knows how much. It's only been in the 20th century that folks realized how to properly process the materials for longevity, and even that's a moving target: in the late 80s Ilford published new archival procedures that flew in the face of "accepted practices." All creative activities that rely on technology (like painting or recording) are working with the materials before all the facts are known. The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it? I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned out to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important? Again, another form of editing. Frankly, I think we have way to much **** hanging aroundg, and if I let my wife edit the photos for the albums, we need twice as many albums as necessary. But we're talking about nearly-perfect preservation that requires occasional updating, versus something that will last quite a while, but slowly AND surely, will disappear. I'm not arguing about "best media," I like film and shoot it for personal pleasure (and use digital for paying jobs), but I'm taking my slides and negatives (and old photos) and scanning them as best I can for preservation. One way of preserving things is by minimizing handling, yet another good reason for digital media. Those valuable originals can stay in the dark, or frozen, or whatever, and the CDs and DVDs can be catalogued, multiple copies (one for storage, one for handling), etc. I see this as the best way to deal with all fragile media. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
MikeK wrote:
Actually, not quite true. Silver is attacked by the sulphurs in our air, that's why fine art BW printers selenium- or gold-tone prints as a final step. (I use selenium) Platinum and palladium are much more inert, but unfortunately, require contact printing. Yup, and that's an increasing problem as pollution gets worse. Kodak used to sell some molecular sieve gadgets that reacted faster than the silver did, for storage in sealed containers. And as for "last a century or two," just like the audio and video media, there will be some slow degradation, and frankly, no one knows how much. It's only been in the 20th century that folks realized how to properly process the materials for longevity, and even that's a moving target: in the late 80s Ilford published new archival procedures that flew in the face of "accepted practices." All creative activities that rely on technology (like painting or recording) are working with the materials before all the facts are known. This is true, BUT we have silver gelatin prints that are a century old that look pretty good. So we know it's at least possible to last that long. That's nowhere near enough experience, but it's still a whole lot better than what we know about magnetic media (and even more than we know about acrylic paints). The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it? I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned out to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important? Again, another form of editing. Frankly, I think we have way to much **** hanging aroundg, and if I let my wife edit the photos for the albums, we need twice as many albums as necessary. But we're talking about nearly-perfect preservation that requires occasional updating, versus something that will last quite a while, but slowly AND surely, will disappear. I am a packrat at heart, because I see both of these alternatives as being bad things. I'm not arguing about "best media," I like film and shoot it for personal pleasure (and use digital for paying jobs), but I'm taking my slides and negatives (and old photos) and scanning them as best I can for preservation. One way of preserving things is by minimizing handling, yet another good reason for digital media. Those valuable originals can stay in the dark, or frozen, or whatever, and the CDs and DVDs can be catalogued, multiple copies (one for storage, one for handling), etc. I see this as the best way to deal with all fragile media. This is absolutely true, and this is the real benefit of digital media if anything is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
MikeK wrote:
Actually, not quite true. Silver is attacked by the sulphurs in our air, that's why fine art BW printers selenium- or gold-tone prints as a final step. (I use selenium) Platinum and palladium are much more inert, but unfortunately, require contact printing. Yup, and that's an increasing problem as pollution gets worse. Kodak used to sell some molecular sieve gadgets that reacted faster than the silver did, for storage in sealed containers. And as for "last a century or two," just like the audio and video media, there will be some slow degradation, and frankly, no one knows how much. It's only been in the 20th century that folks realized how to properly process the materials for longevity, and even that's a moving target: in the late 80s Ilford published new archival procedures that flew in the face of "accepted practices." All creative activities that rely on technology (like painting or recording) are working with the materials before all the facts are known. This is true, BUT we have silver gelatin prints that are a century old that look pretty good. So we know it's at least possible to last that long. That's nowhere near enough experience, but it's still a whole lot better than what we know about magnetic media (and even more than we know about acrylic paints). The problem is that when you're dead and gone, who will remember to do it? I deal with a lot of old tapes that people tossed into boxes and left in attics, and many years after they had forgotten about them, they turned out to be important. Material that everyone agrees is important will get refreshed, but what about the material that nobody realizes is important? Again, another form of editing. Frankly, I think we have way to much **** hanging aroundg, and if I let my wife edit the photos for the albums, we need twice as many albums as necessary. But we're talking about nearly-perfect preservation that requires occasional updating, versus something that will last quite a while, but slowly AND surely, will disappear. I am a packrat at heart, because I see both of these alternatives as being bad things. I'm not arguing about "best media," I like film and shoot it for personal pleasure (and use digital for paying jobs), but I'm taking my slides and negatives (and old photos) and scanning them as best I can for preservation. One way of preserving things is by minimizing handling, yet another good reason for digital media. Those valuable originals can stay in the dark, or frozen, or whatever, and the CDs and DVDs can be catalogued, multiple copies (one for storage, one for handling), etc. I see this as the best way to deal with all fragile media. This is absolutely true, and this is the real benefit of digital media if anything is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1065047074k@trad... I know the answer it this is "You never know" but honestly, I think there's so much stuff that people are concerned with preserving forever that nobody will ever care about. When a bunch of negatives got soaked in a basement flood earlier this year, I didn't cry. Sure, I was saving them but that's just because I don't throw away things until they get in the way. But I really didn't expect that 50 years after I die someone would really care about printing from those negatives. And I feel the same way about any music I've recorded. Generally something worth archiving is recognized (in its lifetime) by experts who will see to it that it's preserved in the best way possible at the time, and continued to be "refreshed." But no music historian has ever knocked on my door asking if he can have copies of my recordings. That's the real test for whether I need to worry about archiving them. Now I'm going to argue against myself.g Like I said, I'm a photographer and I was doing some amateur stuff in college back in the 70s, taking pictures of my parents and other family stuff. I didn't take care of it then, and now I wish I had, with both parents gone and my mother's house (and subsequently a lot of that old stuff) damaged by various neglect. Some of that stuff was also family photos my dad had shot during the 50s and (in bad, very fugitive color) the 60s. I was too young to care about that then. I work for a state agency that contains the state museum and archive, and I see how they scramble to find photo, audio and film documentation of various eras in our state history. (we just recently found a painting of one governor's wife, the only one we had NO documentation of) A lot of that documentation comes from amateurs. So we don't know while we're alive what's going to be valuable to our families or our histories. What's amusing is that people will collect crap on Ebay beause someone says it's collectible, but not take care of their own stuff. The easiest answer is to start with a system and keep up with it. If you create more stuff than you can store or catalogue, you're doing too much. BTW, maybe no music historian has heard your stuff. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Best medium for archiving video
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1065047074k@trad... I know the answer it this is "You never know" but honestly, I think there's so much stuff that people are concerned with preserving forever that nobody will ever care about. When a bunch of negatives got soaked in a basement flood earlier this year, I didn't cry. Sure, I was saving them but that's just because I don't throw away things until they get in the way. But I really didn't expect that 50 years after I die someone would really care about printing from those negatives. And I feel the same way about any music I've recorded. Generally something worth archiving is recognized (in its lifetime) by experts who will see to it that it's preserved in the best way possible at the time, and continued to be "refreshed." But no music historian has ever knocked on my door asking if he can have copies of my recordings. That's the real test for whether I need to worry about archiving them. Now I'm going to argue against myself.g Like I said, I'm a photographer and I was doing some amateur stuff in college back in the 70s, taking pictures of my parents and other family stuff. I didn't take care of it then, and now I wish I had, with both parents gone and my mother's house (and subsequently a lot of that old stuff) damaged by various neglect. Some of that stuff was also family photos my dad had shot during the 50s and (in bad, very fugitive color) the 60s. I was too young to care about that then. I work for a state agency that contains the state museum and archive, and I see how they scramble to find photo, audio and film documentation of various eras in our state history. (we just recently found a painting of one governor's wife, the only one we had NO documentation of) A lot of that documentation comes from amateurs. So we don't know while we're alive what's going to be valuable to our families or our histories. What's amusing is that people will collect crap on Ebay beause someone says it's collectible, but not take care of their own stuff. The easiest answer is to start with a system and keep up with it. If you create more stuff than you can store or catalogue, you're doing too much. BTW, maybe no music historian has heard your stuff. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
| Help with video set up on Denon 1804 | Audio Opinions | |||
| Pyle Mobile Video | Car Audio | |||
| How to get video and/or audio tape to web site? | Pro Audio | |||
| fs Radius Video Vision kit. (2) | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
