|
|
Post by Simon Ashby on Aug 19, 2010 17:01:12 GMT
Just a curiosity, but...
We all know the BBC have been digitising thier archives for some time. But are they slowly freeing up space as they go along?
Put simply, do the BBC still keep the 2" tapes, or are they junked once they have been sucsessfully transfered? I guess technically there is no reason why they should be kept, but for sentimental reasons i.e. keeping them on thier original formats, it seems only right to keep them.
Also for thinghs like Telerecordings of Pertwees that also exist in a better format, do the BBC still hang on to those or have they seen the skip?
I can see it either as a keep every little bit or a junk it if it's not needed anymore situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by StevePhillips on Aug 20, 2010 7:15:49 GMT
The tapes have been given to the National Film Archive where, at least in the short term, they can be recalled if any problems are noticed on the digital transfers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 7:22:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cperry on Aug 20, 2010 7:52:58 GMT
The only 2" tapes remaining at the NFTVA are the tapes that are still waiting to be transferred. All 2" that are now on digital formats have been destroyed.
The NFTVA declined to take the 1" tapes that the BBC have been putting on to digi so they have been destroyed once the digi has been checked.
All new BBC transfers are automatically put on HD or hard drive files now.
Film is retained because it can be re-scanned and re-scanned as HD technology becomes better.
The NFTVA as they digitise their 1" archive are also destroying the 1" tapes.
Where space is such a premium in modern archives, big bulky VT is being disposed of.
c
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Dickel on Aug 24, 2010 9:31:41 GMT
This makes me very angry! how can they scrap the tapes!!!  what happens if they have a huge hard drive failure or the files go corrupt. grrr.... i'm angry beyond words! stupid digital revolution |
|
|
|
Post by brianfretwell on Aug 24, 2010 11:50:57 GMT
This makes me very angry! how can they scrap the tapes!!! what happens if they have a huge hard drive failure or the files go corrupt. grrr.... i'm angry beyond words! stupid digital revolution I thought the BBC stuff was copied as composite to D3 not hard drive. Mind you I would hope that any new stuff was coped to multiple hard drives in different locations. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Disney on Aug 24, 2010 13:45:07 GMT
The BBC are currently ingesting all the D3 material to servers and digital data backup on tape. They can get around twenty lossless programmes onto one single and much smaller data tape. www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Z2djrAW2M |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Moore on Aug 24, 2010 17:36:28 GMT
This makes me very angry! how can they scrap the tapes!!! what happens if they have a huge hard drive failure or the files go corrupt. grrr.... i'm angry beyond words! stupid digital revolution Why? Listen to the Podcast, watch the video. The BBC Archive are preserving their library. It is explained in the podcast that some of the material held by the BBC will become unusable within 20 to 30 years. If the BBC are preserving material in lossless qulaity from the best possible transfer that will ever be possible from an obsolete format then why worry! These are NOT stored on hard drives but on Data Tapes (you can bet there isn't just one copy either!) I've admitedly got mixed messages here - Christopher says the the BFI & NFTVA are distroying the 2" tapes after transfer, the archive (on the podcast) says that they cherry pick what they want and keep the tapes. But whatever the case, If the tapes are going to fail what would be the point in keeping them. The archive engineers plan is to make sure that EVERYTHING is safe and available in the future - isn't that what we are fighting for here? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2010 10:19:22 GMT
I was also under the impression that a lot of 2" material was kept at the BFI. For example, when it was time to release a few of the Dr. Who stories on to DVD, wasn't it found that a few transfers were substandard and that the quads (as retained at the BFI) had to be dug out to make new masters for restoration?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy Williams on Sept 2, 2010 22:39:28 GMT
This makes me very angry! how can they scrap the tapes!!! what happens if they have a huge hard drive failure or the files go corrupt. grrr.... I'm angry beyond words! stupid digital revolution I can see where your coming from on this. The VT's are now being stored on Digi Beta, and then in the future when the next piece of technology comes along it'll be stored on another format. I'm sure multiple copies are made just in case. I have to say though, speaking as an ordinary member of the public, i've kept all my VHS's whilst i've been buying DVDs, because they are prone to scratches and no one knows for certain how long they last for. I have some VHS's that are nearly 30 years old and still play fine. Have the VT machines been kept as well, their's no point in saving tapes if you have nothing to play them on! |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Disney on Sept 3, 2010 10:47:38 GMT
Have the VT machines been kept as well, their's no point in saving tapes if you have nothing to play them on! I would imagine that some will be kept in good working order, but only as long as they have tape holdings in that format. Most broadcasters will rely on outsourcing to transfer companies who specialise in keeping the facilities for old formats alive in the highly unlikely event of ever needing to transfer something from an old format again. Old broadcast equipment is handy to hang on to if you work in the transfer business, but even then, you really need to be able to properly service it and source parts. I nearly bought a Sony 1" VT machine recently, but worked out how unlikely it was that anyone would ever approach me to transfer material from this format for them and didn't bother. They're nice toys, but unless they can pay for themselves, there's not much point in owning them. Firstly, I'd like to say that I understand that it's a very scary prospect that material is transferred into the digital domain and master materials are junked. But I feel my own response to that is based on sentimental feelings rather than hard and sometimes cold logic. This is just my own opinion, but whether I like it or not, I accept it's the future of the industry. I fully understand the feelings of keeping material for future improved transfers, but it's a trade-off between transfer technology improving in quality and the master tapes deteriorating, coupled with maintaining old playback equipment. There has to be a sweet spot where you decide that this is the best quality and most practical backup I can create right now and this is of sufficient quality to exist as the definitive master for the future. Once it's digital, it certainly can't get any worse than it is, and with improvements in restoration technology in the future, it could even be improved upon. As long as the proper picture and sound signals are faithfully recorded to a digital format, none of the original material is lost. Another benefit of digital data is that it's relatively easy to to store and have a proper emergency plan in place to protect the data at multiple sites. I'm a hoarder and very nostalgic and find it extremely difficult to let any original material go, so I should be the last person to run an efficient archive. But that said, even I've been slowly making digital tape and hard disk dubs of my film archive for a certain amount of future proofing. The film prints won't last forever.  These are just a few of my own thoughts and opinions on the subject, and are not in any way an attempt to berate anyone here or attack the thoughts of others. There are no right or wrong answers, just varying archival approaches. I'm just sharing the thought process and decisions I've had to consider recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Stirling on Sept 3, 2010 13:10:27 GMT
To throw a spanner into the works. Major studios are telerecording their new digital films on to good old 35mm for archive purposes. At least with film you can open the can and know instantly if the image is still there and whats been cut and so forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Sept 3, 2010 16:38:19 GMT
I've only just registered, but thanks for the replies!
Interesting about the digital films being telerecorded. What exactly do they do?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wall on Sept 3, 2010 19:37:35 GMT
I've only just registered, but thanks for the replies! Interesting about the digital films being telerecorded. What exactly do they do? I suspect it's a bit more sophisticated than just pointing a film camera at a monitor. I have a recollection of hearing about, I think, some of the effects for the early Star Wars where they were done digitally but then transferred onto film for duplication/distribution. I'm not an expert on 35mm, etc but, once the capital costs in the "telerecording" equipment had been covered, the cost of "copying" a digital film to 35mm probably wouldn't be great. The advantage, of course, is that there's an unencoded image on the film which can be rescanned if required. Good idea imho. It's a bit like old fashioned ink on paper - you can "decode" it with the Mark One eyeball. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Disney on Sept 3, 2010 20:51:37 GMT
I believe they use a machine that's like the reverse version of a digital film scanner that scans a digital image directly onto the film stock. I might have over simplified the technique there though?
|
|
what happens if they have a huge hard drive failure or the files go corrupt.
