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