Dangers of Digital Technology

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

Post Reply
User avatar
VideoFred
Senior member
Posts: 1940
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Flanders - Belgium - Europe
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by VideoFred »

Perhaps we should look at it this way:

Well preserved film wil last for -say- 100 years? Digital however has the potential to last... forever.

I'm working on old R8 Kodachrome footage from 1959 right now. It begins to fade out slowly guys! I wonder how it will look in 2050! My digital transfer however, will look exactly the same in 2050 if it can still be read then.

What we need is a very stable and reliable medium to store digital information on, and universal software tools to read that information. As long as the OS not changes to much, one can always add the codec and even a software player with the digital files.

For now, I still can work with old Win95 software, even under Vista. Let's hope it stays that way.

Fred.
my website:
http://www.super-8.be

about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
standard8
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by standard8 »

i've also heard stories about how new digital feature films have to be stored in data warehouses at great expensive. what happens if the data warehousing company goes out of business or the owner of the film can't afford to pay the storage costs anymore- will they just erase them?
http://www.standard8.org - Resources for the Standard/Double/Normal 8 Filmmaker
User avatar
Ektagraphic
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Southeastern Massachusetts!

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Ektagraphic »

VideoFred wrote:Well preserved film wil last for -say- 100 years? Digital however has the potential to last... forever.
Well preserved Kodachrome can last more than 1000 years. Not well preserved Kodachorme will probably go for about 200. I don't think digital will ever outlast Kodachrome. I think it is nearly impossable that you are seeing a film from the 50s that is starting to fade. It must have not been processed properly or was exposed to some kind of chemical or gas. Maybe it was kept in a plastic that released gasses.
Pull that old movie camera out of the closet! I'm sure it's hungry for some film!
User avatar
VideoFred
Senior member
Posts: 1940
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Flanders - Belgium - Europe
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by VideoFred »

Ektagraphic wrote: Well preserved Kodachrome can last more than 1000 years.
Please do not get me wrong: I love film. Otherwise I was not here on this forum. :wink:

But 1000 years, Ektagraphic! :o
I think it will be dust by then. :P

Ask Kent, he has seen enough old films to know I am telling the truth.

Fred.
my website:
http://www.super-8.be

about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
User avatar
Blue Audio Visual
Posts: 794
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Blue Audio Visual »

The acetate base itself is prone to degradation. Google "vinegar syndrome" if you want more info. Possibly you could store Kodachrome for 1000 years, but the environmental conditions that it would have to be stored in would be pretty taxing to maintain for that sort of period of time! All film archivists recognise that degradation of stock is something you can slow down, but not necessarily stop completely,
User avatar
Uppsala BildTeknik
Senior member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
Location: Sweden, Alunda
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Uppsala BildTeknik »

VideoFred wrote:Well preserved film wil last for -say- 100 years? Digital however has the potential to last... forever.
I totally agree with you Fred.

The guys talking about extremely long preservation of film probably wants to store it in a freezer, in sealed vaccum plastic bags. Now tell me, how on earth will you project this preserved film from the freezer? Run it in the micro whenever you want to see the film? :mrgreen:

I have transferred films from -30´s , it was still in pretty good shape. But my bet is that in another 80 years or so my digital version will be in better shape than the original film from 1932.

If the digital information is migrated (as it should). Nobody can expect to use the same digital medium in 100 years, migrate when it is time to do so and the digital version has the potential to last forever.
standard8
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by standard8 »

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:
The guys talking about extremely long preservation of film probably wants to store it in a freezer, in sealed vaccum plastic bags. Now tell me, how on earth will you project this preserved film from the freezer? Run it in the micro whenever you want to see the film? :mrgreen:
you can actually take film out of a freezer you open the door thing at the front #-o

what do you do with the films after your business has transferred them - burn them i suppose!
http://www.standard8.org - Resources for the Standard/Double/Normal 8 Filmmaker
User avatar
Blue Audio Visual
Posts: 794
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Blue Audio Visual »

I only burn nitrate film as it's much more fun.
User avatar
Uppsala BildTeknik
Senior member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
Location: Sweden, Alunda
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Uppsala BildTeknik »

standard8 wrote:what do you do with the films after your business has transferred them - burn them i suppose!
Burn baby burn! :mrgreen:


or.... eh not. Of course I return the film to the clients. Some people acually tell me to throw away the original films. I refuse and to this day I have managed to talk everyone to keeping their original films. At least that is what they tell me.
User avatar
VideoFred
Senior member
Posts: 1940
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Flanders - Belgium - Europe
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by VideoFred »

standard8 wrote:
what do you do with the films after your business has transferred them - burn them i suppose!
Kent loves film a lot, just like I do. I am very sure he would never burn any film because he has to much respect for it. We realy should not make a battle of this, Standard8!

Actualy, standard8 *IS* my favorite format. The craftmanship of those old R8 clockwork cameras is incredible. I even have plans to shoot some R8 myself in the near future. 8)

Ah the dilemma: I'm a retro man by nature but I have to run four computers for my job and my home transfer work. :mrgreen:

Fred.
my website:
http://www.super-8.be

about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
standard8
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 2:39 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by standard8 »

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:
or.... eh not. Of course I return the film to the clients. Some people acually tell me to throw away the original films. I refuse and to this day I have managed to talk everyone to keeping their original films. At least that is what they tell me.
that's great i can sleep tonight :)

fred -don't mean to make it a battle - perhaps his way of putting things is a little confrontational. after all this was only a thread about a couple of articles i saw no need to beat anyone down with a single point of view. at the end of the day what we say here is not going to change anything.
Last edited by standard8 on Wed May 13, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.standard8.org - Resources for the Standard/Double/Normal 8 Filmmaker
User avatar
S8 Booster
Posts: 5857
Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
Real name: Super Octa Booster
Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by S8 Booster »

once upon a tom in the days of John Pytlac still circumfrensing this forum i am pretty sure there was some info on the Kodak web which stated that the Kodachrome film could last 200 years preserved right while the BW films should be capable of lasting 500 years stored right - based on accelerated ageing tests.

shoot.....
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
8mm
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:44 pm
Real name: Daniel Beijar
Location: Finland

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by 8mm »

I get so annoyed on new things that don´t work properly. My video, for exemple, that was bought around 1998, sometimes get a fault in which it starts rewinding the cassette in the middle of it, and there is nothing you can do about it! And the computer. Last year my computer took farvell and left this earth to go on to the computer heaven and it was just tow years old, thank God I got a new one on the warrenty. And when you think that I have 30 and 50 years old projectors that works just find and a gramophone from the 1930´s that never have failed to play a record. If they just could build things that last today maybe we could use them tomorrow aswell!
User avatar
Uppsala BildTeknik
Senior member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:20 am
Location: Sweden, Alunda
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Uppsala BildTeknik »

8mm wrote:If they just could build things that last today maybe we could use them tomorrow aswell!
Ah, but that is what I call "planned lifetime". They speicifcally don´t build things to last, because then they wouldn´t be able to sell you a new thingy after 3 years.

Sadly there is no money in making things that last, but rather in making things that break... :roll:
BetterSense
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by BetterSense »

What we need is a very stable and reliable medium to store digital information on, and universal software tools to read that information. As long as the OS not changes to much, one can always add the codec and even a software player with the digital files.
For now, I still can work with old Win95 software, even under Vista. Let's hope it stays that way.
This issue is a strong motivator to use open source programs and codecs. Foundations like Wikipedia that understand this only use nothing but open source codecs and formats. In the future there is a much much higher chance to access when you have the knowledge of specifications and source code. You can work with Win95 now because Microsoft graces you with the backward compatibility and support. WHEN they withdraw support you will be SOL. It is the same with all proprietary software.

I have seen this happen over a short time scale with classic game console emulators. Closed-source ones go by the wayside when the developer loses interest in supporting the software, leaving hundreds or thousands of users in the cold over a simple bug that he does not have time to fix. The emulators that last are the ones with open sources and specifications. If the source is open, even if the program becomes unsupported, someone somewhere can make a patch.

We have entered the digital age and the fact that people don't fully understand the benefits of demanding open source software will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth in centuries to come.
f/22 and be there
Post Reply