|
|
Post by John Wall on Aug 29, 2011 8:33:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich Cornock on Aug 29, 2011 21:17:53 GMT
call me naive if you like but why is it so important to keep all this old film stock. Wouldnt it have been better to have spent the money invested in this building converting it all to a digital format that is stable thus removing the need to keep the negatives
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Fretwell on Aug 29, 2011 22:17:01 GMT
I think that it would take many times over the £12M to get all the film in a state to telecine let alone do it in the time before it degrades too much without this storage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Belford on Aug 31, 2011 12:29:43 GMT
Film's still a good storage medium if it's looked after. It's always good to have an original to go back to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Smith on Sept 1, 2011 7:32:44 GMT
You'd think a BBC writer would know that the correct word is not "flammable".  |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Fretwell on Sept 1, 2011 15:11:52 GMT
Film's still a good storage medium if it's looked after. It's always good to have an original to go back to. Indeed, look at the number of obsolete video formats, when 35mm film is still currently in use after over 100 years. |
|
