The best archival format for digital data in telecine work

[timdrage]

I wouldn't say analogue video would be that much more archival...

The point is that analogue tape, stored properly, is more archival that any digital media currently avaliable.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~nadam/downloads/St ... niweb.html
- video of lecture by Albini on analogue/digital and recording generally... interesting stuff if you're interested in that sort of thing!

Stills from private VHS copies from late 80s to early 90s of professional PAL TV signals.

Ulysses 31!!!!!!!!!!! yey! (I have all the episodes on DVD... i take it you just mean that the tape of that particular broadcast is the only one left, not that you have some lost episode?!)

[tlatosmd]

Stills from private VHS copies from late 80s to early 90s of professional PAL TV signals.

Ulysses 31!!!!!!!!!!! yey! (I have all the episodes on DVD... i take it you just mean that the tape of that particular broadcast is the only one left, not that you have some lost episode?!)

It's stills from the German dub on the German channel Tele5 that existed from 1988 to the end of 1992. It didn't die because it had too little success but because it had too much. So much it took important pieces of the private TV market from the German Berlusconi, Leo Kirch. That was allthemore dangerous as Tele5 was the only private channel not owned by Kirch, so he bought it in mid-1992 and closed it down, replacing it with a sports channel. In 1993, he even ordered Tele5's complete broadcasting archive to be destroyed because that little channel had dared to challenge him!

Many German people of my generation, born from about the late 70s to the mid-80s, are still crying about it. Tele5 had been our favorite channel, with it we lost cartoons like Ulysses31, Filmation Ghostbusters, Fantastic Max, Huckleberry Finn, Bobobobs, and other all-time favorites forever...

[timdrage]

In 1993, he even ordered Tele5's complete broadcasting archive to be destroyed because that little channel had dared to challenge him!

Wow, that's pretty harsh!

[christoph]

putting digital data on BetaSP is a terrible idea imo, sorry...
it's expensive, it's unconvenient, it's slow, and you loose quality.

What are you basing your opinion on?

i'm trying not to sound arrogant here, but actually it's not an opionion, its a fact :P

expensive: need a BetaSP recording deck, (5k as you say yourself) each tape is like 20 bucks and you need a capture card that outputs component (from 500.-) and preferably a disk array that does uncompressed output (1k).

unconvenient and slow: you have to record in realtime, make sure you you dont get dropped frames, if you ever need the media again you have to redigitize (which is expensive again).

you loose quality because it's an D/A conversion (and back if you ever need it again in digital form, which is very likely) and BetaSP doesn't have full DigiBeta Resolution.

on the other hand you can buy a 250GB HD for 100 EUR, which will store over 2 hours in Digibeta uncompressed or like 15 hours of DV footage which will be 100% identical to your original footage.

but if you want to use a BetaSP solution i'm not going to stop you ;)
++ christoph ++

[audadvnc]

putting digital data on BetaSP is a terrible idea imo, sorry...
it's expensive, it's unconvenient, it's slow, and you loose quality.

What are you basing your opinion on?

i'm trying not to sound arrogant here, but actually it's not an opionion, its a fact

expensive: need a BetaSP recording deck, (5k as you say yourself) each tape is like 20 bucks and you need a capture card that outputs component (from 500.-) and preferably a disk array that does uncompressed output (1k).

Or take it to a service bureau and have them transfer it for you. You don't have to own the deck.

unconvenient and slow: you have to record in realtime, make sure you you dont get dropped frames, if you ever need the media again you have to redigitize (which is expensive again).

Realtime is a fact of life in analog video. And redigitation is a generational loss. Your point.

you loose quality because it's an D/A conversion (and back if you ever need it again in digital form, which is very likely) and BetaSP doesn't have full DigiBeta Resolution.

on the other hand you can buy a 250GB HD for 100 EUR, which will store over 2 hours in Digibeta uncompressed or like 15 hours of DV footage which will be 100% identical to your original footage.

But will your 250GB HD still run in 20 years? I have a 1986-era Zenith 158 that is still running its original disk drive, but have lost oh-so-many other disks over the years. Hard disks are not reliable archival storage media.

but if you want to use a BetaSP solution i'm not going to stop you ;)
++ christoph ++

If you want to see your video in 20 years you might wish you had made a BSP copy.

[Scotness]

I wonder if there'll ever be some kind of solid state storage device - a chip you could burn or the like - it's got to be an important issue for Governments


Scot

[VideoFred]

If it's only for archiving, not for editing, then why not use DivX? (free!)
With very high bitrate (above 12000)and two pass encoding it gives you the best quality and smallest files possible.

I did many tests... quality comes very near to DV! (sometimes even better) It takes any format and frame rate, too.

You can burn the codec together with the files on the same data-DVD.
So if the codec changes after years, you always can re-install it to view your files.

It's better than nothing... If you have lots of files, it's the only economic way to store them, in my opinion.

Fred.

[christoph]

If you want to see your video in 20 years you might wish you had made a BSP copy.

well, i make DigiBeta copies of all my master tapes, and a BetaSP dub for screening but the topic reads "backup solutions for *digital data*".. and BetaSP is a poor choice for that, for the reasons mentioned above.
i will also transfer my four 250GB hard disks to a 2000GB disk (or whatever storage device is used) in 10 years.

it really depends on how money you're willing to spend. if you pay for a high end transfer facility anyway (300EUR/h or so), then going to DigiBeta is certainly the best choice since it doesnt add too much for your transfer.
but if you use a workprinter and capture to miniDV, then dubbing everything to BetaSP would be not so clever because of the cost added, the quality loss, and the time involved.. you're much better off to make 100% copies on HD/DVD.
++ christoph ++

[christoph]

If it's only for archiving, not for editing, then why not use DivX? (free!)
With very high bitrate (above 12000)and two pass encoding it gives you the best quality and smallest files possible.

for me archiving means that it's very probable that i want to use if again for something else... a new DVD, a sample for a trailer, or even a filmout for a 35mm copy. therefore i want to use the highest possible quality, which usually means the raw DV files if i havent done any image manipulation or uncompressed 4:2:2 10bit files if i started with digibeta or did a lot of effects.. DVCPRO50 is a good master codec too for quality/size ratio and is an industry standard.

the reason why i dont want to use DivX is that it stores the film in groups of frames compressed and it's not a broadcast format, which means that if you want to send it to a TV station or the like you have to reencode to another codec again, but the quality remains lost.

DV is only 25mbit/sec, so going to 12mbit/sec DivX is not that much of a saving (of course, if you have hundred of hours of footage and you only need it for computer playback it's definitely worth a thought.

++ christoph ++

[VideoFred]

i will also transfer my four 250GB hard disks to a 2000GB disk (or whatever storage device is used) in 10 years.

You have four 250GB disks? you're lucky! :lol:

it really depends on how money you're willing to spend. if you pay for a high end transfer facility anyway (300EUR/h or so), then going to DigiBeta is certainly the best choice since it doesnt add too much for your transfer. ++ christoph ++

Christoph, with all respect, but for 8mm film... is this not a little overkill?
I compared my own system with the Flashscan8, Workprinter and even Rank transfers....
I come pretty close I think, at least for amateur use..

When transfering film to digital, post processing is very important, too.
Almost all transfers I have seen are having troubles with over-exposed whites. I wrote a special Avisynth script to improve this. The trick is to expose on the bright parts while capturing and get back the info in the dark parts with the script, the script is covering the whites with a mask.

I think this is more important for a good transfer then all this very expensive stuff, unless you are a professional, of cource. (but than you are filming with 16mm, I guess).

Well, Christoph, this is just my opinion, of cource. I'm not criticise you.
In fact, I'm very happy with you knowledge and contributions, here.


Fred.

[Angus]

I wouldn't say analogue video would be that much more archival...

About 15 years ago I was given a 3/4 tape of a live 1979 television broadcast of a football game. The tape still plays fine.

I have 1/2 inch open reel VT from the same era (1978-1981) that still plays fine...but it's low band material and dropouts wouldn't be as obvious as professional formats.

All digital formats have the problem that you are going to struggle to find equipment to retrieve the data some years down the line...witness NASA trawling eBay to find 8" disc drives for the older shuttles, or the BBC's Doomsday project being made on a 12" laserdisc drive for it's own 1980's micro-computer system...the drive and computer were totally obsolete by the time the project was complete!!! Somebody had to manufacture, at great expense, a bespoke interface to connect the LD drive to a modern PC to access the data - clearly not an option for Joe Public.

But if you must archive to a digital format, choose something relatively robust for the type of data you have. I've heard it said that digital camera memory cards are quite robust (having said that I know they sometimes die). So they might be an option for data under a gigabyte.

As for video, if it is important perhaps make several copies onto DVD-R being sure to keep two safely stored. That way if one copy dies you have a couple of backups and can retrieve the data - being sure to digitally copy it to another format when DVD is superceded.

[christoph]

You have four 250GB disks? you're lucky! :lol:

not really, 3x 250GB, 1x 200GB, 1x180GB, 2x 120GB, and two or three old small disks in the cupboard ;)
i usually jst replace them when space gets tight and bigger storage gets affordable and keep the small disks for savety backups.. at the moment the best buys are around 200-250GB which can be had for under 100EUR.

it really depends on how money you're willing to spend. if you pay for a high end transfer facility anyway (300EUR/h or so), then going to DigiBeta is certainly the best choice since it doesnt add too much for your transfer

Christoph, with all respect, but for 8mm film... is this not a little overkill?

well it really depends... if you shoot a project were wages and rental cost you a few thousand for a video clip, spending 500EUR for transfer on a spirit is not a bad idea.. and spending 200 extra to use Digibeta tapes is quite sensible too.

if you shoot your personal diary films, where one hour of film costs you 200EUR a workprinter transfer can get you quite nice results too.. in fact, i'm very impressed by your machine cam setup and might build something like that myself one day (probably will ask you some stuff about it too ;)

i'm just trying to cover both sides, they both have their vaild solution. it's just that some solutions dont make sense for neither the professionals nor the amateurs.

you're right though, proper settings on transfer help a lot... but one of the big differences between a high end telecine unit and a workprinter solution *is* the improved contrast range. (and the ability to scan negative film).

if one uses a quality webcam with 1024x768 pix and a multi exposure system for HDR images you could get very close to a high end system for a fraction of the cost. it's gonna be slow and lot of manual tweaking, but good ;)

++ christoph ++

[Angus]

I remember watching Tele5 in the UK on satellite.

Here in the UK the terrestrial broadcasters are, by law, required to keep a complete archive of everything they broadcast. The only exceptions are weather forcasts and little inserts - which is why weather bloopers are often taken from private VHS recordings. That law has only been in place since about 1979 however, when it was discovered that the BBC was junking many old programmes that subsequently became saught-after.

Interestingly Anglia TV, the ITV station in the East of England has a complete archive dating to 1958 when they became only the second organisation in the UK (after the BBC) to obtain an Ampex Quad VTR.

[VideoFred]

not really, 3x 250GB, 1x 200GB, 1x180GB, 2x 120GB, and two or three old small disks in the cupboard ;)

You're a HDC! (Hard Disc Collector)
Be careful, this can be dangerous :lol:
For the other members:
Do not try this at home!
Adults only! :lol:

something like that myself one day (probably will ask you some stuff about it too ;) if one uses a quality webcam with 1024x768 pix and a multi exposure system for HDR images you could get very close to a high end system for a fraction of the cost. it's gonna be slow and lot of manual tweaking, but good ;)++ christoph ++

Yes, speed is the bottleneck (4fps while capturing, 3fps while running the script, but the script does resizing, stabilising, denoising, very special sharpening,improving contrast and frame rate conversion (not pulldown, real conversion!) in one pass).

But the 1024x768 is not a webcam, it's a machine vision cam.
My other one, the 640x480 Philips is a 100 Euro webcam.
I have plans to build a new R8 device, using the webcam again.
With the Avisynth script, I can make the webcam files (almost) look like the machine cam files.

Is this economical or not: 20 Euro for an old Eumig, and 100 Euro for the toUcam: :twisted: 120 Euro. :twisted:

Fred.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

You're a HDC! (Hard Disc Collector)
Be careful, this can be dangerous Laughing
For the other members:
Do not try this at home!
Adults only! Laughing

I´m already addicted to this too! :lol:
I think I have somewhere between 23 to 26 250GB drives and maybe 10 160GB drives in a closet (they are too small for me, they just suck up electricity from my computers!)! :lol: