|
|
Post by graemestevenson on Oct 5, 2014 10:59:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by graemestevenson on Oct 5, 2014 11:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Oct 5, 2014 16:51:55 GMT
I remember when this was first brought up on this forum, and two points to mention again are - the BBC R&D report that introduced this project stated (as does the above video) that only a "certain number" of tapes were "selected for retention". The question was asked (but there wasn't anyone on here able to answer) whether that meant the tapes for which they did not have the time, money, parts or whatever to transfer were just left as-is in the archive, or junked. I think you can guess what I fear was their fate. "Oh, but they're just out-takes, studio sessions, etc. Nothing important" is what they'd say. Exactly the same thing happened during the 1">D3 'preservation' project. Anything other than finished programmes were just junked. Which is why broadcast quality out-takes from The Young Ones, Blackadder, etc. existed right up until a few years ago then junked simply because they weren't the final transmitted programmes.
The other issue is that LTO is also a tape-based format. An even more compact one. One for which the same amount of surface area damage to the tape would result in an even greater loss of data. Also I balk every time I hear the phrase "digitize" used in relation to digital tapes. They were ALREADY digital - so they're not being 'digitized' - they already were. They're just being transferred from one digital tape format to another. True the programs are expressed as datafiles instead of proprietary data streams designed for VTR rendition, but that's a nitpick. Digital data on thin magnetic tape is digital data on thin magnetic tape whichever way.
Back then, and even more so now watching this video, I think to myself it would simply have been best to keep everything on its original format, except for tapes that ever exhibited playback difficulties to be earmarked for transfer to the "current format of the day" as and when needed, and for the archives simply to have a department committed solely to keeping working machines in order for 2" and 1". It can be done because it IS done, both at the BBC, facilities houses and a certain number of bearded enthusiasts in the UK and US. And a damaged 2" tape will give a better output than a damaged D3 tape, whereas a degraded LTO tape will give you absolutely nothing at all.
That said, LTO is a better option than just lots of hard drives (which I'm sure was suggested, and which would have been disastrous). I have seen videos of other companies' archives where they HAVE stored everything on HDDs, packed into bubble-wrap-and-aluminum-lined bags then placed into foam-lined briefcases, but in my experience, it isn't how carefully a HDD is stored that matters to its usability after many years - what matters is simply that the moving parts can sieze up, ESPECIALLY if stored really well, especially if the parts have had all movement prevented to them over many years. They will often just refuse to get going again afterwards. Plus knock one slightly on the side when taking it out with your kid gloves, and you may as well not have bothered.
At least LTO doesn't have that problem, but I do wonder how come they think the tape stock of LTO cartridges will be any more impervious to hydrolysis than that of D3, DigiBeta, 1" or 2" tapes.
|
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Oct 5, 2014 17:20:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon B Kelly on Oct 5, 2014 17:40:50 GMT
Perhaps "remastering" would be a better term for moving digital files from one tape format to another, considering that the copying involves several stages of quality control before the LTO is committed to the archive.
What I don't understand is why more parts for the D-3 machines cannot be manufactured. Enthusiasts have managed to keep other defunct formats operational, long past their sell-by dates, so what is so unique about D-3?
And if the BBC only have enough spares on hand to copy a third of their D-3 archive, what happens to the other two-thirds?
It does seem bizarre that after completing "digitization" of their original analogue masters, they're now having to back-up these second and third generation copies already. Will there ever be a definitive format that can last for hundreds or even thousands of years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 18:04:40 GMT
And if the BBC only have enough spares on hand to copy a third of their D-3 archive, what happens to the other two-thirds? Yes, that was the big question which jumped out at me. What's on all those other tapes?! If material is discarded every time there is a format migration, older / valuable material will haemorrhage away. Worrying - to put it mildly. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Oct 6, 2014 8:41:12 GMT
I think what people forget about television archives which is a little different to paper archives is the sheer volume of material which needs to be retained, regardless of archival value. Now, some may well ask what archival value has to do with any of this. Surely everything has archival value?
Perhaps it does. But that doesn't mean it should be kept just because it exists. I'm not talking about completed programmes here which should all be preserved for posterity. I'm talking about studio recordings, out-takes, rushes etc... I know from experience that programme production generates vast amounts of raw footage and if it was all kept, all it would allow us to do is to laugh at other peoples mistakes or see the first take of an unsatisfactory performance of a band. Rarely is that material of any value at all. What broadcasters should be doing, and where mistakes are still being made today, is keeping raw elements of the transmitted programmes, so that future programme makers can make use of the material. The bulk of programmes made do not get repeated after five years from the first year of broadcast and are just left to stagnate in the archive. This is because there is always a demand to make new programmes, hence the 2 or 3 versions of 'Bleak House' sitting in the BBC archive. So why bother keeping those shows at all? Drama, comedy, music, factual etc... all has value in the form of programme sales and exploitation on current and new media. Some material, notably comedy does get repeated regularly. It's all the other stuff, Panorama, news broadcasts, single documentaries etc... that gets ordered up from the archive by current programme makers looking for archive footage. The number of times I've bemoaned the length of available shots in a documentary or annoyance at the appearance of a tacky aston I simply can't remove because I don't have a clean version of the show.
What all broadcasters need to do if they want to make programmes useful to future programme makers is to keep a clean, caption free version of a programme AND a sync and effects soundtrack, not an M&E. These days, it's possible to keep it all in a single file.
What programme makers don't need are the shavings from the carpenters table; lovely for a completist who thinks everything ever put to tape or file should be kept regardless of what it is but pointless in the majority of cases.
Regards,
Paul
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,864
|
Post by RWels on Oct 6, 2014 10:29:02 GMT
I'm not talking about completed programmes here which should all be preserved for posterity. I'm talking about studio recordings, out-takes, rushes etc... I know from experience that programme production generates vast amounts of raw footage and if it was all kept, all it would allow us to do is to laugh at other peoples mistakes or see the first take of an unsatisfactory performance of a band. Rarely is that material of any value at all. There is a bonus disc for Robin of Sherwood which illustrates this nicely. It contains raw footage of the extra features, like unused takes from on-location interviews and footage of the music video. Now that is properly useless. On the other hand, when I see the unused jokes in a Blackadder studio tape that were obviously deleted just to fit the time slot... then I think FECK, WHY weren't these saved (except for two and a half dodgy bootlegs)?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 11:09:55 GMT
The passing of time has shown us repeatedly that today's "useless" becomes tomorrow's "interesting". Not everything, mind, but better to fall on the side of giving future generations the option to decide for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Vanezis on Oct 6, 2014 13:18:18 GMT
Well, the focus should always be on preserving firstly what has been broadcast.
The viewer does not miss what it hasn't seen.
Sure, some will find out-takes and unused jokes interesting, but these are minor exceptions to the rule. Most material that is un-broadcast is un-broadcast for a reason. So, some studio recordings of 'Call My Bluff' won't be archived and will be junked. This isn't something that anyone needs to get worked up over. Managing an archive of unused material would add so much complexity to the archive process as to make it unaffordable and you can't apply the rule selectively because of economies of scale.
Now, back in 1996 I produced a BBC Video called 'Bottom Fluff'. It was the out-takes from the comedy series 'Bottom'. It made a lot of money for BBC Video (and therefore the BBC) and we were then asked to apply the same model to some other popular shows of the time. But when we researched it, there simply wasn't enough genuinely 'funny' material to justify the cost of progressing any of it further. What made 'Bottom Fluff' funny, hilarious even were the antics of the two leads, Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson who played up to the studio audience whenever anything didn't go right. The point here is that the material was identified as having value and was exploited.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Oct 6, 2014 16:53:53 GMT
Red Dwarf managed to have enough outakes & let out material for 2 home video collections, a few years before DVDs started included extra bits as an insentive to buy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by markboulton on Oct 6, 2014 19:39:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Oct 6, 2014 19:48:27 GMT
This might be on-topic.Anything's possible.
Years ago,a firm that sold stamps by post in the U.S.-you remember 'approvals'?-found a batch of old magazines in a cupboard.They'd been retained because they contained ads. for the stamps.Company employee delegated to shred them.It was only as he was putting the last few 1950s 'Captain Marvel' comics in the shredder than be began to wonder if they had any value as collectibles.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianfretwell on Oct 6, 2014 20:28:16 GMT
I often wonder if each new technology for storage lasts for less time then the previous. 35mm film, 2" VT, 1" VT, Betacam, D1, D2, D3, Digibeta, LTO? Of those only 35mm is easy to make new hardware 100 years plus after introduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 8:35:08 GMT
Yes, it certainly seems that way. Film has proved the most durable medium for storing moving images up to now. I wonder what happened to the idea of storing VT data as waveforms on film, by the way? The idea was mooted a long time back but, with such a method, we'd at least be certain that the material would be safe for another century plus (that's not withstanding any archive purges during format transfers in the meantime). There is a general consensus now with the idea that television is culture and history so why can't the experts put their heads together to devise a time-proof method of storing this important material?? Like Mark, I have little long-term faith in the LTO format.
|
|
