Re: [ARSCLIST] Preservation media WAS: Cataloguing still :-)

[George Brock-Nannestad <pattac@xxxxxxxx>]

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad

Richard Hess wrote:


> At 10:13 AM 9/2/2006, Mike Csontos Mwcpc6@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> >To me, the long term archiving by digitization of books is just as
> >questionable as it is for images and audio.
> 
> Mike,
> 
> What would you propose as the alternative?
> 
> I think you'll agree that regular cloning of analog tapes will degrade
> quality.
> 
> I would like to suggest that the effective life of an analog tape is, 
> with luck, on average 50 years, although it seems the _design_ life 
> (of at least some brands) might have been less.
> 
> Digital is the best shot we have to capture recordings before they 
> deteriorate (further) and then be able to rejuvenate them over time 
> to keep them safe.
> 
> I don't see shellac, vinyl, nor analog tape being a viable method of 
> maintaining the high quality of original recordings made from c. 1954 
> until the present.

----- I would like to put the term "maintaining the high quality" into 
perspective. 

I have scans of photographic prints dated ca. 1920, from 5"x7" glass plate 
negatives at least. I think the original negs do not exist any longer. A 
reasonable scanner will deliver 600-1200 lines per inch - mine are 3600 lines 
per inch. I can see the individual grains in the emulsion, and I think that 
they are images of the original grains in the negatives. This is sufficient 
for all purposes - one would think. However, everybody concerned with 
magnifying and printing knows that there is a remarkable difference between 
prints obtained from a light source in the form of an illuminated frosted 
glass and from a condenser. This is due to the way the individual grains are 
illuminated and the fact that they are actually carried in a three-
dimensional matrix, and it influences the contrast and definition of the 
result.

Now, future scans may be able to make a three-dimensional mapping of the 
grains in an emulsion, and I foresee that future data processing may be able 
to provide much better possibilities for making use of this three-dimensional 
information, that is, the information content of a future (almost reachable 
today) scan is higher than a present day scan.

So, the term "maintaining the high quality" is entirely dependent on the 
resolution of the data capture. To the extent that it is possible to extract 
more information from the original analog medium than is actually extracted 
today, we are actually _not_ "maintaining the high quality" of the original. 
The infinite life will at all times be only for the data captured today, with 
today's resolution. This is one reason why it may be sensible to fight for 
preservation of the originals for as long as possible - deep freeze storage 
will slow down all chemical processes of deterioration, but it is costly. And 
this is really what it all comes to: cost. The sad thing is that we cannot 
use costly procedures for everything, so we have to make a choice. Choice 
means selection, and that means that there are things that the future will 
never be able to access, neither the original nor the resolution is 
available. However, such is life, and we must maintain that even a poor 
representation (viewed with Future's eyes) is better than no material at all. 
And we must remember that there were times where there was no photography, no 
sound recording, and no video recording. Writing, drawing, and painting (more 
expensive) was the way to transmit information to future generations, apart 
form oral tradition. Mass transmission was by printing.

So, go out, be happy and work for open source file formats, so that they will 
be supported in the future.

Kind regards,


George