Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

film vs. digital survival of the hurricane

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:51:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
vs.
photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.

I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:27:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Happy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

I have 5.25 disks here with Windows 1.04 on them. Could hook you up
with some vintage OS/2 too.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:13:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Happy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>

The original COMMON formats that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s:

1. GIF
2. Bitmap
3. JPEG

They are all still in use today. I would throw TIFF in there, but I am
not sure when they first surfaced, but I remember them from quite a way
back.

My point ... it might be hard to find something to read the media, but I
don't think they will ever have any trouble with the image format.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:13:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Mr.Happy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than
>> digital. This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside
>> cameras, negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's
>> attic, photo albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>> vs.
>> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>>
>> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>>
>
> The original COMMON formats that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s:
>
> 1. GIF
> 2. Bitmap
> 3. JPEG
>
> They are all still in use today. I would throw TIFF in there, but I
> am not sure when they first surfaced, but I remember them from quite
> a way back.
>
> My point ... it might be hard to find something to read the media,
> but I don't think they will ever have any trouble with the image
> format.

I agree.

What will save the formats, in my opinion, is the need for
historical/documentary continuity.
Millions of important historical and newsworthy photos are archived as tiffs
and jpegs. Terabytes of news websites are archived (have you noticed that
CNN article links from YEARS ago are still viewable?). While they may not
feel compelled to keep software around for your family photos, there will
still be a need to read those same formats that are archived all over the
world. The side benefit will be the existence of software for us lowly,
non-historical types.
:) 
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:

> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

Hi...

The test as to which media type will have survived floodwaters isn't
valid. You can have only one original first generation piece of film
or paper; but unlimited identical copies of digital data, stored
anywhere you might like, on dozens of different media types.

If whatever it was was sufficiently important, it will have survived.
Having said that, I feel badly for those who have lost so much in the
flood, and wish them well.

As for reading/accessing old data, I guess I'm the old guy. I've used
them all, and still can if it's important enough. There will always be
someone who can.

Ken
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:07:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>
I quite disagree. We still have machines to play 78 rpm records, and
even the old cylinders from well over 100 years ago. One might have to
go to a museum for the equipment, but I am sure reading an SD card will
be no great challenge in 100 years.
BTW many of us here worked with DOS/CP/M and Windows 3.11, and a LOT
still use Unix.
I can still read the floppies written on my Atari 1040ST from 1986 on my
Windows XP machine.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:08:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> Please don't feed the trolls.

I don't think that's a troll... -Just someone thinking about longevity.
It's a worn-out topic...but not a troll.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archivists in museums will preserve the media and ways to read it. But, that
is just for old things they find...the data itself will be backed up. There
was a university collecting random websites some years ago as a record of
how the internet got started. They grabbed up my site that I had at the
time. Maybe someone is doing that now...but that might be impossible with
the growth of the net. Anyway...data survives.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:28:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>
In some ways I'm concerned. VHS and 8mm are going the way of 8 track tape.
At some point, new equipment will not be made for the formats. I'll have to
rely on existing equipment to play the tapes.

At least with DVDs and Blue-Ray (sp?) The players are backward compatible to
CDs which still seem to be the most common data recording method.
-S
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:28:33 -0400, "SimonLW" <nospam@donet.com>
wrote:

>"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
>> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
>> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
>> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>> vs.
>> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>>
>> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>>
>In some ways I'm concerned. VHS and 8mm are going the way of 8 track tape.
>At some point, new equipment will not be made for the formats. I'll have to
>rely on existing equipment to play the tapes.

No, that's wrong.
If you want the material on the tapes, copy it to DVDs. It's trivially
easy to do.
>
>At least with DVDs and Blue-Ray (sp?) The players are backward compatible to
>CDs which still seem to be the most common data recording method.
>-S
>
The content of CDs can be re-recorded to DVDs. Or whatever media
overtakes DVDs.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Sep 2005 19:51:22 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
>This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
>negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
>albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>vs.
>photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
>I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

An old argument, long ago answered.
There are basically two different things being addressed here: the
content, and the media.

If the media is important (for example, the Mona Lisa painting)
extraordinary measures should be taken to ensure it's safety over
time.
If the content is important, it should be copied, and the copies
should be protected, including by spreading them out geographically.
Also, the data should be transferred onto new media as it takes over
older media.
These are well-known practices, and are being followed now. If you
haven't discovered this before now, you're behind the times.

A corollary is this: if you're not protecting your data as if it was
important, it's probably not important.
This means that if you don't copy your data to whatever replaces
CD/DVD, thens you don't think it's important enough to do this. This
will not amaze or confuse archeologists; they see it all the time.
This doesn't mean they won't know what it is, or even won't know how
to read it. Thinking it does only means you haven't much information
about archeology. (Hint: they can read Egyptian hieroglyphics.)

The point is this: it's up to the owner of the data to ensure it's
survival. If it's deemed to be important, it's survivability is
increased.
Is your data important?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
September 15, 2005 1:43:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:4328e6dc$0$63631$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Mr.Happy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> > let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> > This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> > negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> > albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> > vs.
> > photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> > SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
> >
> > I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> > on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> > to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> > since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> > file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> > UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> > negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> > VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
> >
>
> The original COMMON formats that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s:
>
> 1. GIF
> 2. Bitmap
> 3. JPEG
>
> They are all still in use today. I would throw TIFF in there, but I am
> not sure when they first surfaced, but I remember them from quite a way
> back.
>

I have some pictures in Amiga IFF format that I can still display with
Irfanview, of course they look shitty by today's standards (640 x 400
monochrome or 320 x 240 color) but still readable. The pictures in IFF HAM
(hold and modify) mode though are unreadable :-(

Jean


> My point ... it might be hard to find something to read the media, but I
> don't think they will ever have any trouble with the image format.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
> Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 1:44:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<<What will save the formats, in my opinion, is the need for
historical/documentary continuity.>>

Hmm, I posted on the issue of digital image longevity a few months ago!


Historical preservation will keep 'important' photos alive...political
leaders, major news events, etc. But just how will our descendants be
able to pull of a digital photo of 'great grandma'..."Honey, have you
heard of any way to read these old CD-R thingamajigs?" This is
further compounded by the fact that photographers are using RAW to
store their images for best quality, yet each manufacturer has its own
version(s) of RAW, and some are resisting the support of a 'generic
RAW'. So when these companies disappear into history (Sperry Rand,
Digital Equipment Corporation, North American Rockwell were all massive
companies that no longer exist, and even Kodak is struggling to survive
the digital transition!) how will our descendants be able to decode the
digital files, even if they can still read the bits off the CD-R?!?!?!
Does anyone really think their son or daughter will be motivated to
convert the terabytes of digital photos from CD-R library you wrote to
the newfangled super-dense-archival media (of the day)?
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:00:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
[...]
> I bet 100 years from now

Safe enough, since you won't be around to pay.

> if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

This idea comes up from time to time, and Mr. Happy's post has
already drawn some fine responses, but I'll point out the more
general answer.

If worried about future media obsolescence, use a format that
many others use. As long as people need to read data from format
X, there will be a market for products and/or services that read
data from format X. Formats go unsupported when, and only when,
there is no longer a market for their support.


The physical readability of CD/DVD-ROM is a different issue.


--
--Bryan
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:06:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And yet... if you find an acetate record, or an old wire
recording, it's still possible to recover the material without
a lot of trouble. There will always be collectors, museums,
archives, and universities that will be able to read old
media. A single program, Micro Solutions Uniform, let me
read over a hundred old cpm format disks, 8" down to 3-1/2".

Mr.Happy wrote:

> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

Wow! Is it a Hurricane thread? Is it a Luddite thread (and if so how did you
start it from your typewriter)? Who knows! This must be what's meant by
multi-threading (Google it if you were sleeping at the time).

Pretty low way of getting people to read your posts, though.

Martin
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:27:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Mr.Happy <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?);

Wouldn't be so sure about UNIX there. It's already passed its 30th birthday
and, if anything, is increasing in popularity.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 2:36:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
[]
> Wouldn't be so sure about UNIX there. It's already passed its 30th
> birthday and, if anything, is increasing in popularity.

But will it survive the great time roll-over in (is it?) 2036 or 2038?

David
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:05:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:29:36 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> cluelessly wrote:

> Brian Baird wrote:
>> Please don't feed the trolls.
>
> I don't think that's a troll... -Just someone thinking about longevity.
> It's a worn-out topic...but not a troll.

So you say. But he has been called a troll by others in previous
threads, starts an unusually high number of threads that might
charitably be called "clueless" and often posts replies such as
these:

=========================

why would anyony want to look at pics of those kids?
the scenery and the sea gull is fine.
any Summer pics without topless babes on the beach are useless IMHO
:-)

=========================

Libya's Moo mar Kudafay gave up his WMDs and other stuff he didnt
want around as he knew a drone might fire a needle at his testees.
. . .
....or maybe Andora as I hear they possess the secrets of the sequel
to 'The DaVinci Code' entitled 'The Andy Worhal Code'.
[yes, old Andy did insert secret codes and messages in his paintings
of soups and Marilyn Monroe].

=========================

http://www.mycandids.com./

why would a pro show it on his site!?
The bride looks like she wants to fart, her eyes are closed,
and why the hell did a Prince William look-alike marry such
a fat pig at all?

=========================

<<while I am just trying to take photos of the babes>>

I speculate that you are more interested in pulling out your
telescopic lens and using it.

--Oh yes, baby! and what a lens it is!
that's why they call me Mr.Happy !!!

=========================
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:28:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

jean <try_to@find.it> wrote:
>
>> The original COMMON formats that we saw in the late 80s and early 90s:
>>
>> 1. GIF
>> 2. Bitmap
>> 3. JPEG
>>
>> They are all still in use today. I would throw TIFF in there, but I am
>> not sure when they first surfaced, but I remember them from quite a way
>> back.
>>
>
> I have some pictures in Amiga IFF format that I can still display with
> Irfanview, of course they look shitty by today's standards (640 x 400
> monochrome or 320 x 240 color) but still readable. The pictures in IFF HAM
> (hold and modify) mode though are unreadable :-(
>

And Amiga IFF format files were never a "common" format, yet there is
still some support out there. That is a good sign I think.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:14:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M,
SNIP

Hey, I've still got a CPM machine in perfect working order. Only if you want
something read from a 5 1/4 in drive or an 8 in one you'll have to bring
your own along as my machine only has a 3 1/2 in floppy (with 400K storage
capacity) drive.
I'm sure one of the other readers could supply.

Gerrit - Oz
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:52:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"I have 5.25 disks here with Windows 1.04 on them. Could hook you up
with some vintage OS/2 too. "

dont have a 5.25 drive, and thats the problem.
I have windows 1.03, installable only from floppies. Since Drive A: is
going the way
of Drive B: anyone who didnt copy their stuff to the newer media with
lose it real soon.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:51:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> <<What will save the formats, in my opinion, is the need for
> historical/documentary continuity.>>
>
> Hmm, I posted on the issue of digital image longevity a few months
> ago!
>
>
> Historical preservation will keep 'important' photos alive...political
> leaders, major news events, etc. But just how will our descendants be
> able to pull of a digital photo of 'great grandma'..."Honey, have you
> heard of any way to read these old CD-R thingamajigs?"

That isn't what I addressed.
I addressed the issue of image formats, such as tiff and jpeg.

Everyone has the responsibility of archiving their data as technology
changes.
Anyone who thinks CDs are the way to do this are kidding themselves.

The good news?? -With each new technology, people will be able to archive
in much larger chunks (meaning faster archiving/copying), and also the
easier ability to create redundancy.

This is already happened twice...first with DVD, and now with double density
DVD...soon to explode into VERY high capacity Blue-ray, etc.

While these may not provide long-term stability, they DO offer ease of
transfer.
When the NEXT tech comes along in a few more years after Blue Ray discs, it
will be even bigger, faster, and likely cheaper per file-size unit.

>This is
> further compounded by the fact that photographers are using RAW to
> store their images for best quality, yet each manufacturer has its own
> version(s) of RAW, and some are resisting the support of a 'generic
> RAW'. So when these companies disappear into history (Sperry Rand,
> Digital Equipment Corporation, North American Rockwell were all
> massive companies that no longer exist, and even Kodak is struggling
> to survive the digital transition!) how will our descendants be able
> to decode the digital files, even if they can still read the bits off
> the CD-R?!?!?!

Don't know, but billions upon billions of neglected negatives/slides
similarly disappear for other reasons. Families need to keep up. If they
don't, their images will certainly fade away into the black hole of data
loss.

>Does anyone really think their son or daughter will be
> motivated to convert the terabytes of digital photos from CD-R
> library you wrote to the newfangled super-dense-archival media (of
> the day)?

They will if they care, just as you will continue to update your archives as
new tech becomes available.
If they don't care, then it doesn't really matter--since they wouldn't
likely go through them anyway.
:( 
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:41:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Chris Brown wrote:
> []
>
>>Wouldn't be so sure about UNIX there. It's already passed its 30th
>>birthday and, if anything, is increasing in popularity.
>
>
> But will it survive the great time roll-over in (is it?) 2036 or 2038?

January 19, 03:14:08 UTC.

One can declare 'time_t' as a 64-bit integer, though doing
so may choke some software, particularly if 'long' is still
32 bits.

My local Fry's Electronics currently has a desktop system with
a 64-bit CPU on special for $300, perhaps an indication that
our chances of getting mostly changed over before 2038 are not
bad.


I'm posting this message from a 64-bit Linux box.
--
--Bryan
September 16, 2005 1:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Sep 2005 19:51:22 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
>This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
>negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
>albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>vs.
>photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>
>I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

Remember in the 1970s when Brits took Olympus OM-1's up Everest?
Why? No batteries were needed, they were fully manual. It would
be funny to watch some poor bastard, up Everest at -20F, as he goes
to take a shot at the summit, his digital refuses to fire!!!!!
-Rich
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:28:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <J8cWe.108997$G8.91045@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Chris Brown wrote:
>[]
>> Wouldn't be so sure about UNIX there. It's already passed its 30th
>> birthday and, if anything, is increasing in popularity.
>
>But will it survive the great time roll-over in (is it?) 2036 or 2038?

2038, and almost certainly - it's a pretty trivial thing to fix compared to
the Y2K problem. Indeed, it's not even an issue on 64 bit machine word
systems, and they're already starting to gain ground.
September 16, 2005 2:35:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Face it......Film is going away. Digital photos will outlast film
photos many times.Try this with a photo.....I had a compact flash go
through laundry...soap, and a full wash cycle. After my clothes
finished drying in my dryer I found my compact flash card. I was still
able to open the files!! As new technology progresses, all computer
equipment has most always been backwards compatible. There will be
conversion programs for formats that are phased out. When you can no
longer by film for your camera, or purchase the chemicals to develop
because they are environmentally unfriendly....what is a film guy to
do then?




On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:16:39 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>On 14 Sep 2005 19:51:22 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>>let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
>>This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
>>negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
>>albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>>vs.
>>photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>>SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>>
>>I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>>on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>>to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>>since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>>file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>>UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>>negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>>VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>
>Remember in the 1970s when Brits took Olympus OM-1's up Everest?
>Why? No batteries were needed, they were fully manual. It would
>be funny to watch some poor bastard, up Everest at -20F, as he goes
>to take a shot at the summit, his digital refuses to fire!!!!!
>-Rich
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:06:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> wilt wrote:
> > <<What will save the formats, in my opinion, is the need for
> > historical/documentary continuity.>>
> >
> > Hmm, I posted on the issue of digital image longevity a few months
> > ago!

I've made comments on the subject as well.



> > Historical preservation will keep 'important' photos alive...political
> > leaders, major news events, etc. But just how will our descendants be
> > able to pull of a digital photo of 'great grandma'..."Honey, have you
> > heard of any way to read these old CD-R thingamajigs?"
>
> That isn't what I addressed.

Unfortunately, no file exists without some form of media and some form
of format. If either is lost, you lose the data.


> I addressed the issue of image formats, such as tiff and jpeg.
>
> Everyone has the responsibility of archiving their data as technology
> changes.

Which is why "important" stuff will have the labor invested to 'save'
it, but its the individual family's shoebox photos that will be lost.

> Anyone who thinks CDs are the way to do this are kidding themselves.

True, but that's simply cherrypicking at the worst elements of the much
bigger problem.


> The good news?? -With each new technology, people will be able to archive
> in much larger chunks (meaning faster archiving/copying), and also the
> easier ability to create redundancy.

True, but its still only *part* of the overall process.

For example, here's a link to my huntzinger.com website where I'm now
keeping a graphical image file that I did for work in 1992 that I did
very faithfully keep migrating forward onto each new computer's hard
drive...and yet it perfectly illustrates this problem:

http://tinyurl.com/cl5s4


Since you'll have problems opening the file, the first hint in
recovering this data is that it was originally created by a mainstream
professional application of its day in 1992.

The second hint is the specific application, which is provided below
after a handful of line breaks for those who want to try first before
seeing the first spoiler hint:

















The file format is Microsoft's Powerpoint v2 for Macintosh. Yes, this
explains the lack of a .PPT file ending.


The third and final hint is how to actually successfully open the file,
since I've had to go figure it out because there was an actual business
need to revisit this report summary a decade after its release.
Again, several linebreaks for those who want to try before seeing the
spoiler:




















Solution: Now that you know its a Powerpoint file, you've probably
tried to open it in whatever current version of PPT that you're
running, and it didn't work. It turns out that Microsoft quietly drops
backwards compatibility to their old PPT formats in newer versions of
PPT. To retreive this PPT v2 file, you need a copy of Powerpoint v4
(vintage 1997), as it was the last version that supported the v2 file
format. Once you have it saved as v4, most of the current versions of
Powerpoint will open it.

And so, not only was it a pain to recover this file because we didn't
realize that we needed to do a 'Quality Check' as new versions of the
Applications came along for the past 13 years (instead of merely
copying files), but you'll see that it looks pretty ugly, since one of
the 'backwards compatible' file translations was not 100% faithful.

Author Clifford Stohll was right...there be Snake Oil.


-hh
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:43:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <J8cWe.108997$G8.91045@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Chris Brown wrote:
>> []
>>> Wouldn't be so sure about UNIX there. It's already passed its 30th
>>> birthday and, if anything, is increasing in popularity.
>>
>> But will it survive the great time roll-over in (is it?) 2036 or
>> 2038?
>
> 2038, and almost certainly - it's a pretty trivial thing to fix
> compared to
> the Y2K problem. Indeed, it's not even an issue on 64 bit machine word
> systems, and they're already starting to gain ground.

Thanks Bryan and Chris.

Yes, that will probably the final excuse to dump all those old 32-bit
systems!

David
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:05:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don wrote:
>
> You argument assumes that everyone is stupid. I agree that there are a few
> of those people around, but most people who have converted to digital know a
> few things about computers and will fare quite well.

The counterpoint is that your arguement assumes that no one is lazy,
ever.

In other words, everyone is always industriously proactive and always
willing to invest whatever time & money that is required to maintain
*ALL* of their saved (image) files ...including all those of
questionable value... in a timely, up-to-date configuration.

The reality is that the 'touch labor' often makes this effort to not be
cost effective, so comprimises are invariably made in deciding what is
"valuable enough" to make the effort to save the data. It depends in
part if its already on a hard disk (easy to automate transfer) or in
some other form that has higher touch labor demands.


> I also believe that 100 years from now, someone, somewhere will have the
> ability to take a CD and convert the data on it to the format in use at the
> time.

I don't doubt that there will be one guy in a cabin in North Dakota
who's paranoid about something, and only relies on pre-"trusted
platform module" PC's, but that doesn't make it a viable commercial
business.

For example, if this is a viable business model, it should be trivial
for you to point me to one of these theoretical "translation services"
companies that should exist today for data transcribing from a standard
80 column punch card. If its important, the Mainframe OS is NOS/BE.

Similarly, author Clifford Stohl pointed out the challenges of finding
a reader for 7-track 1/2" digital computer tapes used by NASA for
Voyager I spacecraft data. Maybe you can show that that scientific
data has now been made available in contemporary formats.


> As I said, most people are not stupid, but innovative and able to
> adjust to technological changes.

But only if there is the recurring compelling need to make the
investment.

This is why the Parthenon in Rome is actually a more amazing building
than the Coliseum: the Coliseum was abandoned and used as a stone
quarry until it partially collapsed, whereas the Parthenon has had 2000
years of continuous occupation and upkeep. That's an amazing amount of
human persistance.

-hh
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 7:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich wrote:
>
<snip>

> Remember in the 1970s when Brits took Olympus OM-1's up Everest?
> Why? No batteries were needed, they were fully manual. It would
> be funny to watch some poor bastard, up Everest at -20F, as he goes
> to take a shot at the summit, his digital refuses to fire!!!!!
> -Rich

Practically *all* 1970's cameras used batteries only for exposure
metering, otherwise they were manual cameras. So your statement about
choosing Oly's for that reason is spurious. IMO they were chosen
because they had a good reputation, and they were about the smallest
35mm slr available.

Your remark about digital failing is not only in bad taste - camera
failure in that situation is most definitely *not* funny. And your
statement is wrong as well. Here in my home city dwells a climber who
has scaled Everest twice, the last time a couple of years ago, and he
took a P&S digital with him. I recently went to a camera club meeting
where he showed by means of a data projector his images of that climb.
Fantastic shots, from wide views to relatively close-in shots, like his
companion negotiating the Hillary Step, only a few hundred metres below
the summit; and the view from the summit, unforgettable. The temp was
below -20, but the small camera lived in his pocket under his outer
clothing. Not even OM-1's would fit there.

Colin D.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:16:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126752682.252445.309640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
> let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
> This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
> negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
> albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
> vs.
> photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
> SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.

Great, sounds a good experiment.
I would expect digital to wipe the floor with the old analogue negatives.
Firstly I would expect them to withstand moisture, dirt and general wear &
tear far better than negatives.
There is also the possibility of recovering digital data from corrupted
disks...not possible with negatives to my knowledge.

> I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
> on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
> to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
> since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
> file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
> UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
> negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
> VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)

I think you are getting misled here, the purpose of backup's is just
that.....a backup.

I store Important data on my hard drive in a generic format. If the drive
screws up I revert to the backups, but so far (touch wood) it hasn't
happened. Whenever new technologies come out I renew my backups, hence
going from flopy to zip to CD-R to DVD-R and so on and so forth to ensure
the backups remain current with the equipment I am using. CD's & DVD's may
go out the window in 100 years time but I guarantee jpegs will still be
viewable.

A larger problem is specialist files for programs such as Photoshop.
Assuming backward compatibility is not maintained there is a potential to
have problems due to incompatible hardware and software. For example having
a copy of Photoshop V5 is no guarantee you can use it. Some older programs
already fail when you try to install them on XP and this will probably only
get worse as more things more to 64 bit operating systems (and maybe 128 one
day). Regardless of all this I am positive that specialist companies will
be in existence to retrieve data such as this where necessary (for a small
fee :) .

The moral of the story is keep your files and backups topical ......

As to the film negatives......I think it will be far harder to reproduce
them (satisfactorily) than digital files.

Although scanners will have moved on they will not be designed for film
scanning (as some of the better ones are today).

Just my 2p, but thanks for a thought provoking thread and let us know how
you get on with your experiment.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Not that it matters to anybody... but when Grandpa dies, I'll bet that
in 95% of
the cases nobody will comb through his hard drive/backup media to
extract family
photos."

well, let's say that grandpa was old Abe Zapruder who never told anyone
he captured JFK's last breath.
You never know what you will find in grandpa's old family album or
cd's...
....and lets not forget his now valuable porn collection which you could
sell on eBay.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Just my 2p, but thanks for a thought provoking thread and let us know
how
you get on with your experiment. "

well, I have collected some useless negatives, and a 32mb card.
I have placed them into the toilet which I hadnt flushed for a week,
thus it is full
of a mixture of urine and feces, to which I added ammonia, and lemon
juice.
I am willing to mail to you the specimens for analysis.
September 16, 2005 11:35:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Per Chris:
>Face it......Film is going away. Digital photos will outlast film
>photos many times.Try this with a photo.....

Not that it matters to anybody... but when Grandpa dies, I'll bet that in 95% of
the cases nobody will comb through his hard drive/backup media to extract family
photos.

My money would be on good-quality prints.
--
PeteCresswell
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:43:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Chris:
>
>>Face it......Film is going away. Digital photos will outlast film
>>photos many times.Try this with a photo.....
>
>
> Not that it matters to anybody... but when Grandpa dies, I'll bet that in 95% of
> the cases nobody will comb through his hard drive/backup media to extract family
> photos.
>
> My money would be on good-quality prints.

Hi...

I'm one of those Grandpa's, and I think I have that possibility covered.

The solution is simple - archive anything that *may* be of interest to
anyone in the future. Make multiple copies, so that each family member
has one. Then distibute them NOW! :) 

Then everyone who wants to enjoy them now can, and you get the added
benefit of multiple off-site copies as well.

What they individually want to do with them in the future is their call.

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 4:49:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:
> Don wrote:
>>
>> You argument assumes that everyone is stupid. I agree that there
>> are a few of those people around, but most people who have converted
>> to digital know a few things about computers and will fare quite
>> well.
>
> The counterpoint is that your arguement assumes that no one is lazy,
> ever.

That's nothing new.
Laziness has always...and always will cause pain.
It harms negatives with heat, moisture, and dust.
It harms digital from a lack of redundancy and upgraded tech.

The same people who lost/damaged their negatives will lose their data.

There is one difference, though, in that a shoe-box full of
negs/slides...forgotten in an attic...can still render decent shots 50 years
later...where digital requires upkeep.

This is not unique to digital images, though.
Documents and other digital information have been just as vulnerable for
years.
I've got EVERY SINGLE document I've EVER created on any IBM-type
computer...from back in DOS days. They still read, and I've got them on
current media.

The challenge of digital images comes in part from the simple size and
quantity of files involved for most people.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 7:05:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mr.Happy wrote:
> "Not that it matters to anybody... but when Grandpa dies, I'll bet that
> in 95% of
> the cases nobody will comb through his hard drive/backup media to
> extract family
> photos."
>
> well, let's say that grandpa was old Abe Zapruder who never told anyone
> he captured JFK's last breath.
> You never know what you will find in grandpa's old family album or
> cd's...
> ...and lets not forget his now valuable porn collection which you could
> sell on eBay.
>
Yeah, the original of a nude Elvis would be a real item! Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 1:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:
[...]
> This is why the Parthenon in Rome is actually a more amazing building
> than the Coliseum: the Coliseum was abandoned and used as a stone
> quarry until it partially collapsed, whereas the Parthenon has had 2000
> years of continuous occupation and upkeep. That's an amazing amount of
> human persistance.

I don't think you mean the Parthenon. The Pantheon maybe?

--
--Bryan
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:22:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:35:59 -0400, Chris <cka691@alltel.net> wrote:

>
>Face it......Film is going away. Digital photos will outlast film
>photos many times.Try this with a photo.....I had a compact flash go
>through laundry...soap, and a full wash cycle. After my clothes
>finished drying in my dryer I found my compact flash card. I was still
>able to open the files!!

Would you have put the equivalent number of negatives through
the laundry?

If your house burns down, it will likely take your flash
cards, hard erives and negatives/prints with it. So unless you're
providing offsite backups for all these media, they're all equally at
risk.

> As new technology progresses, all computer
>equipment has most always been backwards compatible. There will be
>conversion programs for formats that are phased out. When you can no
>longer by film for your camera, or purchase the chemicals to develop
>because they are environmentally unfriendly....what is a film guy to
>do then?
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:16:39 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Sep 2005 19:51:22 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <bolshoyhuy@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>here is a real world test, the toughest of them all:
>>>let's see if 35mm negatives survived the flooding better than digital.
>>>This includes unprocessed rolls of film, film still inside cameras,
>>>negatives stored in grandpa's basement and uncle Lou's attic, photo
>>>albums, 16mm&VHS videos, etc.
>>>vs.
>>>photos stored on CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, etc.
>>>SD/xD cards(whether inside the camera or not), etc.
>>>
>>>I bet 100 years from now if anyone finds a CD/DVD or an SD card
>>>on the premises once known as New Orleans they will not know what
>>>to do with it or how to read it as the OS, software, etc. will long
>>>since have gone out of use and no one will know how to work with the
>>>file formats just as now 99% dont know how to work with CP/M, DOS,
>>>UNIX, etc.(how many here have used Windows 1.0 - 3.11?); However, if
>>>negatives are found in good condition, photos could be made.(probably
>>>VCRs wont exist so VHS tapes would be unreadable as well.)
>>
>>Remember in the 1970s when Brits took Olympus OM-1's up Everest?
>>Why? No batteries were needed, they were fully manual. It would
>>be funny to watch some poor bastard, up Everest at -20F, as he goes
>>to take a shot at the summit, his digital refuses to fire!!!!!
>>-Rich
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 4:29:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:17:44 +1200, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>
>Rich wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> Remember in the 1970s when Brits took Olympus OM-1's up Everest?
>> Why? No batteries were needed, they were fully manual. It would
>> be funny to watch some poor bastard, up Everest at -20F, as he goes
>> to take a shot at the summit, his digital refuses to fire!!!!!
>> -Rich
>
>Practically *all* 1970's cameras used batteries only for exposure
>metering, otherwise they were manual cameras. So your statement about
>choosing Oly's for that reason is spurious. IMO they were chosen
>because they had a good reputation, and they were about the smallest
>35mm slr available.
>
>Your remark about digital failing is not only in bad taste


Bad taste??? How prissy can you get?


> - camera
>failure in that situation is most definitely *not* funny. And your
>statement is wrong as well. Here in my home city dwells a climber who
>has scaled Everest twice, the last time a couple of years ago, and he
>took a P&S digital with him. I recently went to a camera club meeting
>where he showed by means of a data projector his images of that climb.
>Fantastic shots, from wide views to relatively close-in shots, like his
>companion negotiating the Hillary Step, only a few hundred metres below
>the summit; and the view from the summit, unforgettable. The temp was
>below -20, but the small camera lived in his pocket under his outer
>clothing. Not even OM-1's would fit there.
>
>Colin D.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 6:27:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net writes:

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:35:59 -0400, Chris <cka691@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Face it......Film is going away. Digital photos will outlast film
> >photos many times.Try this with a photo.....I had a compact flash go
> >through laundry...soap, and a full wash cycle. After my clothes
> >finished drying in my dryer I found my compact flash card. I was still
> >able to open the files!!
>
> Would you have put the equivalent number of negatives through
> the laundry?
>
> If your house burns down, it will likely take your flash
> cards, hard erives and negatives/prints with it. So unless you're
> providing offsite backups for all these media, they're all equally at
> risk.

Offsite backup is possible in digital. It's not possible in film.
(You *can* make copies of film negatives, but they're not as good, and
it's a lot of trouble; so okay, it's sort-of "possible", but it's not
reasonable.)

And in fact the vast majority of my digital photos (and scans of film
photos) exist in off-site backups.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 6:26:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Damn. I always get those two landmarks transposed (argh!).

In any event, the point was that saving anything requires maintenance,
and one strategy to make this easier (and lower cost) is to defer to
lower maintenance technologies.

The implication here is that the same thing that makes digital tech
exciting right now is its high pace of change, which ultimately means
that it is relatively high maintenance vs the alternatives. As such, it
is most likely the worst possible choice to meet this specific type of
system performance requirement.



-hh
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:04:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1127294765.468964.324150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Damn. I always get those two landmarks transposed (argh!).
>
> In any event, the point was that saving anything requires maintenance,
> and one strategy to make this easier (and lower cost) is to defer to
> lower maintenance technologies.
>
> The implication here is that the same thing that makes digital tech
> exciting right now is its high pace of change, which ultimately means
> that it is relatively high maintenance vs the alternatives. As such, it
> is most likely the worst possible choice to meet this specific type of
> system performance requirement.


I keep hearing this "high pace of change" nonsense concerning digital
archival storage all the time and I'm fairly sick of it. Guess what? If
you started using floppies to archive stuff in say, 1985, floppy drives are
still available in 2005 and will be for some time to come! CD-RW is not
going away anytime soon, nor is writeable DVD. In fact, I contend that
legacy storage technologies will continue to exist long enough for any
archivist with half a brain to re-archive well before the legacy equipment
becomes obsolete. If any organization is too stupid to establish an
archival methodology using either in-house or sub-contracted resources, then
their data aren't likely worth saving anyway.

I do wonder, though, how many physically-archived negatives and prints were
irretrievably lost during this and former hurricane seasons. Of course,
unlike digital, physical backups can't be distributed over networks and RAID
arrays. Bit-for-bit, I'd bet the cost of maintaining digital archives is
incredibly less expensive than maintaining physical backups.

Oh, yeah-- I'll concede that digital paper-tape storage is probably history.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 7:47:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:1127294765.468964.324150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Damn. I always get those two landmarks transposed (argh!).
>>
>> In any event, the point was that saving anything requires
>> maintenance, and one strategy to make this easier (and lower cost)
>> is to defer to lower maintenance technologies.
>>
>> The implication here is that the same thing that makes digital tech
>> exciting right now is its high pace of change, which ultimately means
>> that it is relatively high maintenance vs the alternatives. As such,
>> it is most likely the worst possible choice to meet this specific
>> type of system performance requirement.
>
>
> I keep hearing this "high pace of change" nonsense concerning digital
> archival storage all the time and I'm fairly sick of it. Guess what?
> If you started using floppies to archive stuff in say, 1985, floppy
> drives are still available in 2005 and will be for some time to come!
> CD-RW is not going away anytime soon, nor is writeable DVD. In fact,
> I contend that legacy storage technologies will continue to exist
> long enough for any archivist with half a brain to re-archive well
> before the legacy equipment becomes obsolete.

I agree with you about the availability of drives, etc.
There's a more important reason for people to update though...
-Simply that CDRs, DVDs and floppies are subject to decay beyond a usable
state (and believe me...it's not gooing ot take 100 years as used to be
widely claimed).
For this reason, they'll need to have serious redundancy, but also a cycle
of transfer to newer discs/technologies, etc. It's more than just the
hardware availability.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:14:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In addition to "DVD Rot", Paul also happens to be conveniently
forgetting his PC history:

Circa 1985 (a date Paul chose) the only real adopters of 3.5 floppies
was Apple and HP.

The apple was the of course the Macintosh, which used a 400KB floppy.
The 400 was backwards-supported by the later 800KB drive, but this
support was dropped with the 1.4MB drive (circa 1995?).

Bottom line is that new hardware today doesn't support these old 3.5"
formats (which Paul picked by his dates...not me).

Similarly, the HP was the HP-150 touchscreen, which in some ways was a
copy of the Mac. But because of the unique hardware (3.5" and
touchscreen), it didn't use a standard flavor of MS-DOS, and further,
because HP was ahead of the rest of the PC industry for adopting the
3.5, HP's format was not chosen to be the MS-DOS standard. In any
event, these early SS formats were not backwards-supported in the 3rd
hardware generations that we use today....as if a 1.44MB storage media
is even considered useful today.


In any event, the issue IMO has never been with "having the brains" to
cherry-pick the known valuable images for posterity, but rather, how to
manage the vast majority of material, whose value today is not
neccessarily recognizable - That's wher the paradigim of "Low
Maintenance" shines through, and which still doesn't quite exist in
digital media as is does in phisical film...despite the storage care
constraints of the latter.

-hh
!