Long term archiving??

[Guest]

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

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:AHK%d.751287$6l.193741@pd7tw2no...
>
>
> James Silverton wrote:
>
>>
>> It is amazing how quickly hardware becomes obsolete. 5.5 inch
>> discs have been mentioned. I came across some I wanted to read
>> recently and I am still searching for a friend with an antique
>> computer (g). It's not
>
> <snip>
>
> Hi James...
>
> I can still read virtually anything; but haven't heard of
> 5.5 inch disks... perhaps you intended to type 5.25 inch?
>
> If so, more than willing to read them for you if you like,
> and send the contents back on a cd or dvd. Only downside might
> be that I'm in Canada, so perhaps it'd be less difficult if
> a 'merican stepped up.
>
> Nevertheless, I'm here and perfectly willing if you don't
> get a closer offer.
>
> Ken
>

Thanks very much Ken. The need to read was only for interest's sake. A
friend has mentioned that another friend (in the US Government of
course!) is supposed to have an old computer with both sizes of floppy
drives. It is possible that it is a dual purpose drive but I am trying
to track it down. You are right of course about the size: I actually
measured one to be sure 🙂

Thanks again!


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

 

[Guest]

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>
>>> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>>>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>>>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>>
>
>>> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide
>>> paper, from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival
>>> albums.
>
>> Wisecrack is a matter of intent, so your claim is definitive. It is,
>> however, a *wrong* answer.
>
>> Color photos printed that way are good for 50 years or so.
>
> Colour prints can fade badly, but Kodak reckon that Endura paper is
> good for 200 years in dark conditions.

So it's as good as the best inkjet materials, finally. And it's not a
product you're likely to find snapshots printed on, either.

> Anyway, he must have been talking about B&W, not colour, because AFAIK
> colour prints aren't silver halide -- they're dye prints. From that
> POV he was surely right, but do OFOTO do silver halide prints at all?

That was my immediate thought; but when I dug up the latest Wilhelm
report on minilab papers, they described them as 'silver halide'. I
guess that's actually correct, they do use silver halide as the
photo-sensitive agent, it's just that in chromagenic color materials
the silver is all bleached out in the processing, and the actual image
is dyes; which is rather different from conventional B&W materials.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

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

Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> writes:

> Let me pose this question, if I may?
>
> Suppose you were rooting around in "old stuff", perhaps
> in the attic... and among some old albums you came across
> an exposed but undeveloped film. Would you take it in and
> pay the two or three dollars to have it processed, on the
> off-chance it may be something really worth having?

I have done so, several times. So I guess I would.

Nothing useful has yet come of it, of course; very old film stored in
the attic has nearly certainly been cooked to death. And I knew that
when I had it processed; I was going for that .1% chance of something
interesting anyway.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

 

[Guest]

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

"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lSF%d.448$z.19@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>
>> AFH
>>
>
> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide paper,
> from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival albums.
>
> I mean this sincerely, this is not a wisecrack answer.
>
> It is a virtual certainty that CD and DVD technology will be eclipsed, and
> if YOU are not around to migrate your images to whatever is in vogue in
> the
> future, your precious CDs may just be chucked into the trashbin by someone
> that does not know what is on them.

I agree, for any photos that you really care about, get them printed using a
quality process on quality paper. Yes they might fade. I have the albums of
photos from my parents. However they, and most people, didn't hold onto the
negatives, so for most people, comparing the life of a CD to that of a film
negative is pointless, because the negative will probably go in the trash
before the print. Do your best to preserve the images, and just hope for the
best.

> Hers is a true story:
>
> My elderly aunt went into a nursing home several years ago, when she had
> no
> one left to care for her. The court-appointed social worker arranged to
> have her condo cleaned out and sold, as there was no chance that my aunt
> would ever be going back to live in it. A professional residential
> clean-out service was hired to inventory and sell the furniture and other
> effects.
>
> They saw no monetary value in the three photo albums that contained family
> photos going back to the late 1930s, so they just checked them into the
> trash dumpster in back of the building.
>
> My brother happened to be there to have a look at what was going on at the
> condo, and he just happened to walk past the dumpster and he noticed the
> photo albums (he did not recognize them as belonging to my aunt). He
> pulled
> them out and, lo and behold, there were hundreds of photos of our parents,
> aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc!!! He rescued the albums and
> brought them to me so I could scan and preserve the images, and distribute
> copies to other family members.

You're lucky your brother spotted the albums. Had the photos been in a
shoebox, would he have still found them? It just shows you really need to
have someone that knows / cares about you to clean out your house after you
die. I'm suprised they didn't think of holding onto the albums for family.

> Now, why did I tell you this? Because there is an important truth to be
> remembered: the only reason that the images were salvaged was because they
> could be VIEWED without any special equipment. Had they been on CDs, they
> would have, no doubt, never been taken from the trash heap and they would
> be
> on a landfill somewhere, rather than being safe with me.

The only reason the photos were salvaged was because your brother was at the
right place at the right time. If I see some CDs laying around I will
investigate what they are.

> While I certainly endorse digital archiving, I do so with the condition
> that
> the digital media be accompanied with some kind of analog print--perhaps
> just an index print--but there needs to be SOMETHING that reveals what is
> contained on the digital media.

Am I the only one that labels discs? If you find a disc labeled "family
photos, 2002-2004" you would have an idea of the contents and might not
throw them away.

Adheasive labels are obviously a no-no, and some inks can damage the top
layer of a CD (which is very thin), however with DVDs, the recording medium
is in the middle of two pieces of polycarbonate, so it is probably safe to
write on the top layer with a marker.

Something important to do is to caption photos, list names, where it was,
significance, etc. Originally I saved it as an ASCII file on the disc, and
kept a printout copy with my prints, but things can get seperated, so I
started writing them (carefully) on the back of prints.

> Even with that, I am embarking on a program of having PRINTS made of
> important photos, and I am storing those prints in archival sleeves, bound
> in albums, and stored in as close to ideal temperature and humidity
> conditions as I can. The photos are all labeled, and there are CDs
> accompanying them in the albums, in case it becomes necessary to reprint
> the
> images.
>
> I also am distributing copies of the CDs to other family members, with the
> objective of having copies in diverse places in case of a fire, flood,
> theft
> or other disaster.
>
> But I am convinced that THE most important part of my archiving project is
> the actual prints. I hope this gives you food for thought.
>
>

 

[jeremy]

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

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qfyyo1z7q.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
>
> > And the professional data transfer services, don't forget them. The
> > point being that data that's wanted and is stuck on 5.25" floppies
> > *isn't unrecoverable*.
>
> Oh, the point is that data on a 5 1/4-inch floppy is completely unknown
and
> therefore will _not_ be recoverable. If I find a 5 1/4-inch floppy in my
> file drawer where it fell down in between folders who knows how many
> decades ago, I'm tossing it. It's trash. I don't know what's on it, but if
> I haven't used it in that long, I'm not going to go hire a professional
> data service to recover the data at who knows what cost, only to find it's
> a real estate financial analysis I did on whatever that spreadsheet was
> that ran on my 8088 IBM PC with dual floppy drives.
>
> Whatever is on there is not worth the expense of the recovery, as far as I
> can tell.
>
> >SNIP<
> > You say there isn't a way to preserve digital images for two
> > generations, which I'll call 50 years just to be more specific. I
>
> I'll agree on 50 years being two generations.
>
> > think that's overly pessimistic. If you're asking me for an
>
> Maybe -- I won't object to pessimistic, and I won't strenuously object to
> overly, as I think that's a matter of judgment.
>
> > *absolutely certain* way to accomplish it, I'll freely admit there is
> > none. But that's true for preserving conventional film and prints,
> > too; bad processing or manufacturing batches can get you, and those
> > materials will fade significantly in 50 years in room-temperature
> > storage. And the house they're in might burn down. If I make CD and
> > DVD copies on 6 brands of media, test them after burning to be sure
> > they're good, and distribute those 6 copies among interested people
> > who agree to test and recopy as necessary, I think the digital results
> > will have a much better chance of lasting 50 years in perfect
> > condition than the conventional film and prints. If those 6 disks are
> > put in boxes in various attics and basements, I think they have an
> > equal chance of at least one of them lasting 50 years as conventional
> > film and prints put in boxes in attics and basements (the film and
> > prints are considerably more sensitive to humidity).
>
> Okay, two things: I am not sure that the digital archives will last 50
> years. I'm comfortable that the prints and negatives we have will; we've
> already got prints and negatives older than that. I'm less confident in
> whatever they're making CDs of. Among the issues: degradation of the
> physical medium, failure of the metal that the bits are burned into,
> failure in 50 years to have access to the CDs or DVDs in any consumer
goods
> then being sold (look back 50 years in computers and pick me something
from
> then (punch cards, tapes, whatever) that I can get hooked up in a device
to
> my home PC and read).
>
> Second, if you come across a box of photos, you look in and see what's
> there. If you come across a box of CDs, you look at the shiny surface (or
> corroded, delaminated mess, as the case may be), and say, "Huh." Then you
> toss them.
>
> Taking both things into account, I am not confident that CDs will still
> result in people looking at the pretty pictures. I am confident that
prints
> in a shoebox will result in photos being seen by the people who live over
> our hypothetical basement two generations from now.
>
> >SNIP<
> > Also remember that the RA-4 print materials most commonly used haven't
> > been around for 50 years either. Our ideas on how long they will last
> > are based on the same accelerated testing procedures that people
> > complain so much about with inkjet prints and digital media.
>
> Hence my pessimism about how long so-called archival media will last with
> all the bits burned in.
> --
> Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
> The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
> http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.

Chances are that people will just throw the digital media out, rather than
go to the trouble of taking it somewhere and paying to have it
decoded--especially if the contents (if any) are unknown.

 

[Guest]

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

Jeremy wrote:


<BIG snip>

>
> Chances are that people will just throw the digital media out, rather than
> go to the trouble of taking it somewhere and paying to have it
> decoded--especially if the contents (if any) are unknown.

Hi...

I respectfully disagree. Though perhaps it's age related;
perhaps how family oriented you are, or how interested you
are in your roots.

Evidence the fellow that's trying to discover the colour of
his grandparents house.

Let me pose this question, if I may?

Suppose you were rooting around in "old stuff", perhaps
in the attic... and among some old albums you came across
an exposed but undeveloped film. Would you take it in and
pay the two or three dollars to have it processed, on the
off-chance it may be something really worth having?

Take care.

Ken


to have

 

[Douglas]

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

No one has yet experienced the time you speak of in terms of storage of
digital images. Much video footage has been stored on magnetic tape and when
you see the replay it has deteriorated considerably. All magnetic media
will, over time lose it's orientation of particles and "evaporate" the data.

Optomagnetic drives produced in the late 80s by Canon were said to hold
recoverable data for a very long time. Unfortunately the drives never really
go a hold in the storage area but none the less, data I recorded in 1992 is
still accessable on the drive I have. How my decendents will access the data
without a working drive is quite another thing.

TDK produce some CDs specifically for archiving data. They claim to have a
huge life in terms of what we now know is limited on many discs. I have some
Kodak 'Gold" CDs I recorded on a 2x Sony drive in 1995 which have images on
them and the images are still intact, still have vibrant colour and the
discs show no sign of "data loss" experienced by other people. I am making
recordings of these on new CDs now, which I expect to extend the
'lastability' past a generation.

I think storage of the archive is more important than the medium it is
stored on. If you carefully store the CDs in a relatively low humidity and
away from strong light, you could indeed get a lifetime of storage.

The longest lasting known photographs are on glass plate. I can't help but
wonder why it is so important to store the type of photographs we take on
digital cameras for so long. My thoughts are that memorable events are one
thing and family pictures are an entirely different thing altogether.

Douglas

"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
> AFH
>

 

[Confused]

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:19:19 -0500
In message <oaudnQsVyLce2N3fRVn-jg@comcast.com>
"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@erols.com> wrote:

> > I can still read virtually anything; but haven't heard of
> > 5.5 inch disks... perhaps you intended to type 5.25 inch?
>
> Thanks very much Ken. The need to read was only for interest's sake. A
> friend has mentioned that another friend (in the US Government of
> course!)

;^)

> is supposed to have an old computer with both sizes of floppy
> drives. It is possible that it is a dual purpose drive but I am trying
> to track it down. You are right of course about the size: I actually
> measured one to be sure 🙂

There were quality control issues in the early
days of 5.25 discs relating to disk drive
tolerances and media tolerances. I wouldn't
be a bit surprised if IBM tried a slightly larger
drive hole and disk sleeve to try and compensate.

Q Does anyone know of a reputable dealer of old
stuff where I can find an 8" disk drive? The
computer I want to get running is an Industrial
Microsystems CP/M machine.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:15:04 GMT, Confused wrote:

> Q Does anyone know of a reputable dealer of old
> stuff where I can find an 8" disk drive? The
> computer I want to get running is an Industrial
> Microsystems CP/M machine.

No, I don't, and I dumped mine quite a long time ago. You're
probably familiar with 8" drives, but in case you aren't, make sure
that if you find any that they're the right type. I imagine that if
you can only find a single sided, single density drive you won't
turn it down, but you'd be better off with double sided, double
density drives. Some 8" drives that you'll probably want to skip
over are the ones that use hard sectored disks (such as Helios) or
those that have odd interfaces, such as Persci drives as used in
Cromemco computers, which used voice-coil, not stepper motors. I
remember Industrial Microsystems BTW. I didn't use them but worked
in an office that had a couple of them just a few feet from my desk.

 

[Guest]

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

Confused wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:19:19 -0500
> In message <oaudnQsVyLce2N3fRVn-jg@comcast.com>
> "James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I can still read virtually anything; but haven't heard of
>>>5.5 inch disks... perhaps you intended to type 5.25 inch?
>>
>>Thanks very much Ken. The need to read was only for interest's sake. A
>>friend has mentioned that another friend (in the US Government of
>>course!)
>
>
> ;^)
>
>
>>is supposed to have an old computer with both sizes of floppy
>>drives. It is possible that it is a dual purpose drive but I am trying
>>to track it down. You are right of course about the size: I actually
>>measured one to be sure 🙂
>
>
> There were quality control issues in the early
> days of 5.25 discs relating to disk drive
> tolerances and media tolerances. I wouldn't
> be a bit surprised if IBM tried a slightly larger
> drive hole and disk sleeve to try and compensate.
>
> Q Does anyone know of a reputable dealer of old
> stuff where I can find an 8" disk drive? The
> computer I want to get running is an Industrial
> Microsystems CP/M machine.
>
> Jeff

Hi Jeff...

Here's a couple for you to take a look at...

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1247&item=5177002233&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1247&item=5177391189&rd=1

Take care.

Ken

 

[Guest]

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

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YMZ%d.755489$Xk.486944@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> <BIG snip>
>
>>
>> Chances are that people will just throw the digital media out, rather
>> than
>> go to the trouble of taking it somewhere and paying to have it
>> decoded--especially if the contents (if any) are unknown.
>
> Hi...
>
> I respectfully disagree. Though perhaps it's age related;
> perhaps how family oriented you are, or how interested you
> are in your roots.
>
> Evidence the fellow that's trying to discover the colour of
> his grandparents house.
>
> Let me pose this question, if I may?
>
> Suppose you were rooting around in "old stuff", perhaps
> in the attic... and among some old albums you came across
> an exposed but undeveloped film. Would you take it in and
> pay the two or three dollars to have it processed, on the
> off-chance it may be something really worth having?

Most places won't charge if the film is blank (or unusable) but I would be
willing to risk a couple bucks incase there does happen to be an interesting
photo on it (older photo of a relative, or a house, or a car or something)

 

[Confused]

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

In message <5j71415i1p7g764ra00bhu8lbrl6cq2uct@4ax.com>
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:15:04 GMT, Confused wrote:
>
> > Q Does anyone know of a reputable dealer of old
> > stuff where I can find an 8" disk drive? The
> > computer I want to get running is an Industrial
> > Microsystems CP/M machine.
>
> No, I don't, and I dumped mine quite a long time ago. You're
> probably familiar with 8" drives, but in case you aren't, make sure
> that if you find any that they're the right type. I imagine that if
> you can only find a single sided, single density drive you won't
> turn it down, but you'd be better off with double sided, double
> density drives. Some 8" drives that you'll probably want to skip
> over are the ones that use hard sectored disks (such as Helios) or
> those that have odd interfaces, such as Persci drives as used in
> Cromemco computers, which used voice-coil, not stepper motors. I
> remember Industrial Microsystems BTW. I didn't use them but worked
> in an office that had a couple of them just a few feet from my desk.

Thanks for the info! (And Ken, too. ;-)

Your quick refresher course reminded me of several issues I need to
check into. Off the top of my head, I *think* the drive is single
sided double density, but the documentation will have the information.
Pulling the original drive and getting the model number would help
too. ;^)

FYI The boat anchor hosts a GDS/Synergy development system (FM music
synthesizer); SN #3 of 5 made. The non-programable Synergy synth sold
around 500 units at $5000 before Yamaha nuked the USA synthesizer
industry by introducing the DX-7 FM synth at 1/4 the price (and they
discounted it). At this point it is a highly sought after collectors
item but no one wants to pay for it. MUSICIANS! Might as well be a
bunch of old photographer... LOL... but I just want to get it running
and tinker with sounds again.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:07:46 GMT, Confused wrote:

> FYI The boat anchor hosts a GDS/Synergy development system (FM music
> synthesizer); SN #3 of 5 made. The non-programable Synergy synth sold
> around 500 units at $5000 before Yamaha nuked the USA synthesizer
> industry by introducing the DX-7 FM synth at 1/4 the price (and they
> discounted it). At this point it is a highly sought after collectors
> item but no one wants to pay for it. MUSICIANS! Might as well be a
> bunch of old photographer... LOL... but I just want to get it running
> and tinker with sounds again.

A musician friend of mine had several Yamaha synths, and I believe
the DX-7 was one of them. Not sure though. He also had a midi
controller for it. Don't recall the model number but it resembled a
clarinet or perhaps a giant recorder and I think Yamaha made that as
well. I've even got one of Casio's early keyb/synths buried away
somewhere. I have no idea if it'll ever function again so I'm in no
hurry to find it.

 

[Guest]

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

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid writes:

>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>>> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>>>>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>>>>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>>>
>>
>>>> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide
>>>> paper, from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival
>>>> albums.
>>
>>> Wisecrack is a matter of intent, so your claim is definitive. It is,
>>> however, a *wrong* answer.
>>
>>> Color photos printed that way are good for 50 years or so.
>>
>> Colour prints can fade badly, but Kodak reckon that Endura paper is
>> good for 200 years in dark conditions.

> So it's as good as the best inkjet materials, finally.

Yes, it looks that way. However,
http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_11-10-04.html#9 says "Kodak
use of non-standard methods for predicting image life of
digitally-printed photographs enables them to claim a life that is 15
times greater ..." However, that is the test for light fading, which
is irrelevant here. So, a pinch of salt is required.

> And it's not a product you're likely to find snapshots printed on,
> either.

Good point: no-one locally seems to offer prints on the stuff. I've
got an Endura colour evaluation target here, and it really is very
nice indeed.

>> Anyway, he must have been talking about B&W, not colour, because
>> AFAIK colour prints aren't silver halide -- they're dye prints.
>> From that POV he was surely right, but do OFOTO do silver halide
>> prints at all?

> That was my immediate thought; but when I dug up the latest Wilhelm
> report on minilab papers, they described them as 'silver halide'. I
> guess that's actually correct, they do use silver halide as the
> photo-sensitive agent, it's just that in chromagenic color materials
> the silver is all bleached out in the processing, and the actual
> image is dyes; which is rather different from conventional B&W
> materials.

Oh, right, that's weird. It seems strange to describe such prints as
silver halide when there's no silver image, but if it's standard usage
I won't argue.

Andrew.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de>,
"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote:

> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??

The general procedure that agencies such as broadcast networks who
archive their material is that they back up to the latest and greatest
media available. Then after the latest and greatest media is obsolete,
they move to the next latest and greatest media and they keep equipment
and information around to read the older stuff and slowly copy
previously archived data to the latest and greatest media.

Right now, I would say that dual layer DVD is the latest and greatest
archival media for the typical consumer.

 

[Guest]

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

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:58:37 -0500, Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net>
wrote:

>In article <423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de>,
> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
>The general procedure that agencies such as broadcast networks who
>archive their material is that they back up to the latest and greatest
>media available. Then after the latest and greatest media is obsolete,
>they move to the next latest and greatest media and they keep equipment
>and information around to read the older stuff and slowly copy
>previously archived data to the latest and greatest media.
>
>Right now, I would say that dual layer DVD is the latest and greatest
>archival media for the typical consumer.

Single layer media costs under $.50.
Dual layer media costs about $17.
Just because something is newer doesn't make it better suited to do a
particular job.
To me, $1 beats $17 any day for storing photo files.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

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

For digital preservation -- www.slidescanning.com