U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Digital Film backup

RE: Digital Film backup

Title: RE: Digital Film backup
I would suggest that if you fellows want true archival back-up of your digital files you better have them printed on film while film is still available. In some cases you might even save space.

Unless one is very systematic in moving files from one generation storage device to the next, and I suspect that very few of us are, the files are going to eventually be lost. That is one of the major reasons I continue to do all of my work on film, even though I scan and print mostly from digital files.

Sandy King

At 12:57 PM -0600 6/8/07, Camden Hardy wrote:
Alright Mark, here's what you need to do.  Buy a house in Switzerland, get yourself all set up with a high speed internet connection, and plug in a nice big file server.  That way, when WW3 rolls around, you know your images will be safe.  : )
Camden Hardy
From: Ender100@aol.com [mailto:Ender100@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:39 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Digital Film backup

In addition to the concerns you raise, I don't see any statement on the site about resolution that would come even close to what I would want.

These issues aside, backup is a problem.  Even migrating files to newly acquired and larger hard drives, there is still not a good backup solution.  We need reliable , inexpensive backup media in the multi-Terrabyte range that can be stored off site.  I have two terrabytes of files on my current hard drives and that will only increase.

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups

In a message dated 6/8/07 12:31:11 PM, camden@hardyphotography.net writes:

Hmmm, I have some serious problems with the claims this company makes on
their website.

From the "Film for Preservation" page...

"Do you let the fruits of your labor hinge on $6,500 USD worth of magnetic
data or video tape and hope that nothing goes wrong? Or do you archive to
the proven and trusted medium of film knowing that when the network wants to
run the show in 2038 it will look as good as the day you shot it?"

Assuming you have the equipment around to use your digital media (i.e.
magnetic hard drives, CD/DVD) in 2038, or you keep up with periodically
migrating your data to the current de facto standard for digital storage
(and this, of course is the major caveat of digital storage, implied in the
"Remember the Home Beta Player?" section), it will in fact look "as good as
the day you shot it".  When properly maintained, digital images/video never
lose quality.

"Data contained on the [CD/DVD] disk is printed and stored on the side of
the disk with the thinnest layer of protection."

Well, the same applies to film.  :)  In fact, film emulsions scratch much
easier than the foil on CDs.  If you're really worried about scratching,
I've found that a thin coat of varnish on the foil works nicely.

"Reliability of these [CD/DVD] disks has been questioned when looking at
whether the data would be recoverable using devices other than the original
authoring device."

This is simply not true.  CDs use the standardized ISO9660 filesystem
format, and DVDs use the standardized UFS filesystem.  Standardized.  Every
computer with an optical disc drive can read these formats.  A correctly
burned disc will have no problems being read by other CD/DVD devices.

"Storage of images at a resolution high enough to equal the resolution of
film is costly and prohibitive in terms of technology. The space required to
store all of these hard drives or disks would be greater than that used to
store the actual negatives."

A 25-pack of archival CDs from Light Impressions is $41.99, which comes out
to be about $1.68 per CD.  These CDs have a capacity of 650MB, which will
hold 43 RAW files shot with a 10.2MP Nikon D200 (15MB).  How much is a 36
exp roll of 35mm film these days?  More than $1.68.  Likewise, archival DVDs
are about $3.32 each.  They'll hold 313 15MB RAW files, which is 8.69 rolls
of 36 exp film!

I used the D200 as an example because the current consensus, as impossible
it is to definitively answer the film vs. digital question, seems to be that
8-10MP is about equal to 35mm.

There many other logical holes on this site, suffice it to say that they
really haven't made a strong case for using 35mm film as an archival storage
solution over digital.  They say things like digital storage is "unsuited to
a long-term archival function", yet they provide no further information: why
is it not suitable for long-term storage?  No data whatsoever to back up
their argument.  The entire website just seems to be one big FUD (Fear,
Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign to scare people into buying their services.

Camden Hardy


See what's free at http://www.aol.com.