|
|
Post by Paul Edwards on Jan 25, 2015 3:21:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Leach on Jan 25, 2015 13:36:02 GMT
Great article, makes you think about the way some Tv companies are rushing to digitised their archive, whether they are preserving the original tapes/films or purely relying on the new fragile digital copies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Jan 26, 2015 9:56:44 GMT
(Ray shudders uncontrollably and weeps slightly). My main hope for the digital age was that we would never have to encounter 'missing' episodes again. And this hope seems further away than ever. |
|
|
|
Post by johnpater on Jan 26, 2015 11:20:42 GMT
In this ruthlessly commercial age, you would think companies took the matter seriously enough to ensure survival of their assets (hate that term) but it does seem there is going to be more losses in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 26, 2015 11:41:33 GMT
We should be OK so long as 'Tomorrow's World' doesn't do a feature on how robust and foolproof the new system is...
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by RWels on Jan 26, 2015 12:18:59 GMT
(Ray shudders uncontrollably and weeps slightly). My main hope for the digital age was that we would never have to encounter 'missing' episodes again. And this hope seems further away than ever. Although the Toy Story story is shocking, the article is somewhat playing the devil's advocate, don't you think? Think how much was lost in each film vault fire just because copying film is so very expensive. A server park will have hard disk redundancy. It's not as if one portable hard disk is left to rot. And the claim that "35mm film will last 500 to 1000 years" may be a bit optimistic also... And wouldn't the same also apply to the music industry? |
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 26, 2015 13:52:09 GMT
Certainly-ignoring small matters such as genocide and terror-there must be easier ways of removing a country's film/TV heritage away from conflict than loading thousands of reels onto lorries.We've learnt at times that the easier a thing is to copy well,the more likely it is to survive somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Jan 26, 2015 14:23:01 GMT
The fall and rise of the telerecording it seems ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Jan 26, 2015 19:46:25 GMT
(Ray shudders uncontrollably and weeps slightly). My main hope for the digital age was that we would never have to encounter 'missing' episodes again. And this hope seems further away than ever. Although the Toy Story story is shocking, the article is somewhat playing the devil's advocate, don't you think? Think how much was lost in each film vault fire just because copying film is so very expensive. A server park will have hard disk redundancy. It's not as if one portable hard disk is left to rot. And the claim that "35mm film will last 500 to 1000 years" may be a bit optimistic also... And wouldn't the same also apply to the music industry? RWells makes some very valid points. It is scarely believable that the Toy Story information has been lost. Maybe some of the orginal modelling information (Handy for generating a 3D version) but not the final render. Most large IT firms backup to magnetic tape. This needs periodic refresh once in a while and duplication. However if you just take these simple measures then all your data is safe due to checksuming. So that in the digital world your cannot lose information due to the physical medium which far outstrips film in robustness. The problem with the digital world is viruses and incompetency. It is very easy to delete in the digital world even with auditing. There is also the possibility of overly avid rights protection going out on the net like a virus, in a similar way to the Red Salamander went out burning books in Fahrenheit 251. So an unofficial archive preserving content could get attacked. We relyed upon unoffical copies to save Dr Who. |
|
|
|
Post by Marie Griffiths on Jan 26, 2015 21:33:07 GMT
Having said that. Even if you can record every frame losslessly down to film grain then you should not be junking your originals. Digital is a good safety copy and one that allows accessibility. The argument in the article about conversion costs is spurious, true if you want to compress without visible differences then you need to tweak the encoding but most stuff doesn't nee this level of attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ray Langstone (was saintsray) on Jan 27, 2015 8:49:10 GMT
Having said that. Even if you can record every frame losslessly down to film grain then you should not be junking your originals. Digital is a good safety copy and one that allows accessibility. The argument in the article about conversion costs is spurious, true if you want to compress without visible differences then you need to tweak the encoding but most stuff doesn't nee this level of attention. Thank you for your input Marie, wise words.  |
|
