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
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 »

71er wrote:I find it very odd to say to mr_x that he didn't take enough care: come on, his disc is going to be 4 years old now - you shouldn't have to expect that it is already corrupted.
No, you shouldn´t. But you should always keep at least two copies of anything you find important. Why? Because hard drives fail, discs fail or get lost. With a backup somewhere it gets a lot more safe.

So backup. Backup, backup, backup. And keep the backup somewhere else than your home. If a disaster strikes your house all your backs are safe.

71er wrote:One thing I didn't understand in the discussion until now: you don't lose any data when you copy digital information from one format to another? ... and when it gets transfered to a different format that has another algorithm to do the compression it stays completely the same?
Yes, if you copy the file the copy if perfect.

But if you would re-save the image in a new format (like from gif to jpg to tif to bmp), then you might loose some quality depending on the format you choose. But there is no need to change formats until jpegs are old and unsupported (and I´m saying that won´t happend).
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 »

If one is as vigilant about migrating his digital files as he is about properly storing his chemical based imagery, then the electronic media should last as long, if not longer, than the chemical based media because the migration of digital does not affect the quality of the image across time. This simply can not be said for chemical based photos. Even under the best of storage conditions, they do change. Digital does not.
This is what it is all about imho. Theoretical, it will be possible to look at pictures from 2009 in the year... 10009 :o without any quality loss. In a certain way, digital can stop aging...

Hey...Can we not make a digital copy from ourselves? :mrgreen:

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

about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
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 »

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:
So backup. Backup, backup, backup.
I have had a horrible crash way back in 1987. It took me an entire week to fix that. Ever since then, I am a backup maniac. :)
And yes Kent, on different locations. :idea: :wink:

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

about film transfering:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_k0IKckACujwT_fZHN6jlg
User avatar
jpolzfuss
Senior member
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:16 am
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by jpolzfuss »

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:"so we cannot view JPG files in ten years because computers won´t know how to decode a JPG file" (yes, that was exactly what a swedish TV program compared when they wanted to scare everyone with doomsday tales).
That's a valid thought:
* some parts of the JPEG-standard are covered by patents. The holders of those patents might withdraw the rights to use those patents in newer software. And the current software might not work any more on the "smartphones" we might have in 10 years instead of PCs.
Just keep in mind that similar things had happened with the GIF-pics some years ago: "Following this announcement, there was widespread condemnation of CompuServe and Unisys, and many software developers threatened to stop using the GIF format." (Source)
* What's "standard" today, might be obsolete (and hence "unreadable") in 10 or 20 years. Think of the C=64-"Koala Painter"-format. Or of the "GeoWrite"/"GeoDraw"/...-formats used in PCGeos. Or of "Word" for DOS. Or of "WordPerfect" ("At the height of its popularity in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was the de facto standard word processor"). Or of the "FLIC animation"-standard used by some Autodesk-programs. Or of all those programs that were "standard" on the Atari ST, Commodore Amiga or Acorn Archimedes. Back then, everyone was saying that those programs are having millions of users and that hence there will "always" be at least viewers for those formats. Now you'll hardly remember the names of those formats. (Yes, there still are viewers/converters for those formats. But in most cases they aren't included in the current OSs or "office"-programs. And in some cases they're a "pain in the ..." to use. So I doubt that you will search for those viewers when the files are "only those files generated by your parents decades ago" - especially when they're stored on some obsolete media that require special hardware.)
* Do you really think that jpeg will still be used by digi cams in ten years? Maybe they've all switched to "RAW", "TIFF", "PNG", some fractal compression or that strange Microsoft-format by then? So why should a computer/smartphone/netbook/whatever come with a free jpeg-viewer in 10 years?

Jörg
P.S.: No, I'm not saying that it will be impossible to view your jpeg-pictures in the future. But it might become more and more complicated and more and more expensive to do so. And you might end up in a situation where it'll be too complicated / too expensive to watch all your 10000 to 100000 digital "photos".
This space was left intenionally blank.
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 »

jpolzfuss wrote:...Just keep in mind that similar things had happened

... (Yes, there still are viewers/converters for those formats....
So what is the problem? Take digital copies in a new format. Sae the weirdo fromats as jpegs, simple .txt files or whatever.

This is what some people call "migration". If you can still migrate the content I don´t see the problem. :roll:
Angus
Senior member
Posts: 3888
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 11:22 am
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Angus »

71er wrote:My grandparents did not take a lot of care when it came to store their standard 8 films and so didn't my parents. Most of the films are still in a great condition and all of them are watchable. I can see that some of them are shrinking and a few have a colour shift; so my kids can still watch the films but their kids might not be able anymore; but they will not be interested as they don't know the people on the films ... So maybe an archive will be interested to save some footage to show what Ravenna, Italy, looked like in 1957, but for family purposes the life expectancy of film is long enough.
I find it very odd to say to mr_x that he didn't take enough care: come on, his disc is going to be 4 years old now - you shouldn't have to expect that it is already corrupted.
This is one of the most important issues. Joe Ordinary doesn't have the time, inclination, resources or knowledge to constantly keep backing up or carefully preserving his photos/movies/other data. The fact that cine film and photo negatives/slides often do survive is not because people took particular care in storing them, its because the media were/are robust.

Similar to 71er, I inherited my late grandfather's 8mm films in 1993. He'd died some twenty years earlier, and the films had been in my uncle's attic in a box for that time. They'd been subjected to temperature changes with the seasons, humidity changes...though they were probably never subjected to strong light. Some time later, when I spent 18 months in the USA they were moved from the house into a damp, dusty shed. But every one of those films, shot 1964-1972 is nigh on perfect. There are some exhibiting cracks in the emulsion, but they're all intact and project OK.

My dad left a cache of plates and negatives from the 1950's to 2000's. He didn't take much care over storing them, they're in cardboard boxes stashed in drawers or just stashed in cupboards. Some are in their paper/card envelopes but most are loose. But every one of them could be used to make new prints, even if some of those prints would show scratch damage on the neg/plate. The photos would be viewable and easily restored if necessary.

Now look at Mr_x's CD. While it is not necessarily reasonable to assume our media will last 50 years...it is certainly not unreasonable to assume you're going to be able to read it 10 years later.

Joe Ordinary doesn't look at his photos/movies/data frequently. He puts them in a cupboard or something, and gets them out every few years. When he realises on the occasion of Junior's 10th birthday that the photos and movies of his first steps etc. aren't viewable....or that the photos of his wedding are corrupted..he's not going to be pleased...
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter :)
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by MovieStuff »

Angus wrote: Joe Ordinary doesn't look at his photos/movies/data frequently. He puts them in a cupboard or something, and gets them out every few years. When he realises on the occasion of Junior's 10th birthday that the photos and movies of his first steps etc. aren't viewable....or that the photos of his wedding are corrupted..he's not going to be pleased...
Likewise, when he finds his original negatives aren't in the cupboard where he thought he put them and can't find them and he has no perfect duplicate, he's not going to be pleased. We often are asked to scan from a print because the negatives are nowhere to be found or, even if they have them, Joe Ordinary doesn't know how to look at a negative and tell what it is. I know far too many people that threw their negatives away because they have prints. They don't really even understand what negatives are.

While I agree that Joe Ordinary may not have the inclination to make safe copies of his digital files, it couldn't be any easier. That he fails to do it isn't the fault of the digital medium. That would be like saying there is an inherent problem with chemical based imagery because you can never remember which cupboard or box you stored your negatives in and, therefore, the risk of them getting thrown out with something else is greater than if the images were stored in your computer. There is always a "what if" scenario.

"What if" people simply took care of their negatives and digital imagery? Then there is no problem. "What if" they don't? Then they take a risk, even if they don't understand that risk.

Roger
Jim Carlile
Posts: 927
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:59 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Jim Carlile »

Hey, I still have a lot of important stuff on old Commodore 64 disks-- and they all work fine, still.

In fact, none of my analog magnetic media has given me any problems yet-- I don't think I've ever lost a floppy disk or a cassette to age, so I'm skeptical of these lowball time limits for analog recordings. And I don't store them well, either-- they are usually full of dust when I track them down. Thirty- and forty-year old tapes play just like they always did.
User avatar
MovieStuff
Posts: 6135
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
Real name: Roger Evans
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by MovieStuff »

Jim Carlile wrote:..... Thirty- and forty-year old tapes play just like they always did.
I find that fast forwarding fully and then rewinding fully before playing does wonders for preventing drop out and sticking. Yeah, I have a butt load of VHS tapes and they all still play fine.

Roger
filmo
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by filmo »

71er wrote:. A good example I heared of: in the 40's radios operated by "valves" (before transistors) were produced. By now the knowledge of how to produce such a valve has been lost - it can not be done anymore without developing the production process from scratch.
Long live the film!
I assume you're talking about vacuum tubes, which are still being designed and produced all over the world. 95% of the world's professional electric guitarists use tube amps. You can get a fireware preamp loaded with vacuum tubes that hooks up directly to your Mac or PC. And in fact, if you want, you can get an all-tube portable radio. Brand new. For a price, of course. Read about it on retrothing (a very super-8 friendly site, BTW):
http://www.retrothing.com/2009/02/2b-tube-radio.html
User avatar
jpolzfuss
Senior member
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:16 am
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by jpolzfuss »

Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:So what is the problem? Take digital copies in a new format. Sae the weirdo fromats as jpegs, simple .txt files or whatever.
E.g. when you store a WordPerfect-text as "simple .txt" you'll lose all informations about the used styles (bold, italic, ...), fonts, page-layout, integrated images, ... .
E.g. when you convert a GIF to JPEG, you'll lose all transparency/animation-information and you'll add some compression artefacts.
E.g. when you store a JPEG as uncompressed BMP, you'll lose all EXIF-information, the comments, ... .
Or take a look at this problem when converting images from Kodak's Photo CD into another format.
Etc. pp.
Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:If you can still migrate the content I don´t see the problem. :roll:
To repeat myself: The problem of any migration is that it has to be easy-to-use, fast and cheap. Otherwise you wouldn't do it!
  • How much time does it take you to find and install that converter/migration-tool?
  • Will there be a "ready-to-run"-solution or do you have to download and compile the source-code yourself, e.g. from sourceforge (if it still exists in ten years)?
  • Will the tool automatically convert all files on a selected hard-disk or in a selected folder? Or do you have to manually select single files and press some keys for each "migration"?
  • What if you'll have to pay "per use" for that tool, e.g. 0.10 US$ per converted JPEG? Will you still be willing to convert all your digital images?
  • Will there be a "stand alone" tool - or just a tool that only runs on "M$ Windows 2020 Ultra Premium Gold Maximum Profit Professional" with at least the "M$ Office 2020 Platinum Edition" installed?
  • Do you lose information upon migration? (see my above examples)
  • Will you be able to do this yourself at home or do you have an external (=expensive) service (e.g. a shop that still has got a computer that can access Floppy-Discs/Zip-Discs/CDs/DVDs/HD-DVDs/Bluray-Discs/tapes/Jaz-Discs/USB-sticks/SD-cards/CF-cards/...)?
  • How fast is the tool? E.g. converting one digital-video-format to another might be very slow. E.g. my digi-cam takes "quicktime movies". In order to edit them with my existing tools, I would have to convert them to AVI. My computer predicted that it would take him 4 (four!) hours to to this conversion for all files (run length in total: 1h 22min and some seconds). "Of course" I cancelled the conversion and delayed it "until I do have more time"... .
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 »

jpolzfuss wrote:...a WordPerfect-text as "simple .txt" you'll lose all informations about the used styles...
Doh! :roll: Save it as something that doesen´t loose styles. Or print them, save the papers or scan them and save as whatever.
jpolzfuss wrote:... a GIF to JPEG, you'll lose all transparency...
So save it as something that can have transparat layers. PSD? PNG? Do I need to tell you everything?
jpolzfuss wrote:..."lots of ridiculous questions"...
Seriously? You thought I would have the answers to how long it will take for a future converter that doesen´t exist today to do a job?
(amongst other totally silly questions)

Wow. It feels like you are looking for problems instead of solutions. Try looking for solutions instead, it will be a lot easier. I promise.
Will2
Senior member
Posts: 1983
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:18 am
Real name: Will Montgomery
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by Will2 »

So backup. Backup, backup, backup. And keep the backup somewhere else than your home. If a disaster strikes your house all your backs are safe.
Wise words.

Ran into this recently when I discovered some old VHS tapes from 25 years ago of some projects that I thought had been lost. Forgot that an old friend made copies of them (but on LP mode yuck!) and he asked if I still had the originals. If I had never found them I would at least have his copies to duplicate. So take a set of backups to a relative's next time you visit for a holiday and ask if you can throw them somewhere safe.

Now I'm copying everything to DVCAM then importing the digital files and storing on several other mediums.

Another element to the backing up story is to keep at least one version of each recorder/player in decent shape. I have a U-Matic tape deck I picked up for $100 and I keep it in a closet in case I ever need to go back to those. I also have an 8mm video tape machine, digital 8, DVCAM & S-VHS decks piled up.

While I have backups in multiple formats it's good to know I can always go back to the originals if I have to.
BetterSense
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 10:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by BetterSense »

I assume you're talking about vacuum tubes, which are still being designed and produced all over the world. 95% of the world's professional electric guitarists use tube amps.
Sure. So if you want tubes for your popular guitar amp, you should be able get some. Although many people insist that newly-manufactured vacuum tubes aren't as good as the ones made back when they were rolling out of the factories in massive quantities.

But surely you realize, that all electronics are not guitar amps. If you need a vacuum tube for an electronic device, chances are overwhelming that they are not being made anymore. Thankfully with the complete crash in the usage of vacuum-tube-using devices, there are generally New-Old-Stock tubes available for most things, but how long with that last? Nobody is going to make you a single vacuum tube, or a pair, or even a dozen. It is basically not possible given the economies of scale that allowed the manufacture of the original tubes. This is why rare tubes go for hundreds of dollars on eBay. The price would have to go many orders of magnitude higher even than that, before it would be cost-effective to make new ones.

The modern analog (heh) to vacuum tubes is integrated circuits. In a very similar way it is literally not possible to make them once production stops and demand falls. Original sound chips for old game machines are being hoarded now, because once they are gone, they will be gone forever. It's basically not possible to get more made, ever. It's an interesting case of something going from a stamped out mass-produced part costing pennies and sold on razor-thin margins, to a rare unduplicable gem.
f/22 and be there
filmo
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Dangers of Digital Technology

Post by filmo »

BetterSense wrote:
I assume you're talking about vacuum tubes, which are still being designed and produced all over the world. 95% of the world's professional electric guitarists use tube amps.
Sure. So if you want tubes for your popular guitar amp, you should be able get some. Although many people insist that newly-manufactured vacuum tubes aren't as good as the ones made back when they were rolling out of the factories in massive quantities.

But surely you realize, that all electronics are not guitar amps. If you need a vacuum tube for an electronic device, chances are overwhelming that they are not being made anymore. Thankfully with the complete crash in the usage of vacuum-tube-using devices, there are generally New-Old-Stock tubes available for most things, but how long with that last? Nobody is going to make you a single vacuum tube, or a pair, or even a dozen. It is basically not possible given the economies of scale that allowed the manufacture of the original tubes. This is why rare tubes go for hundreds of dollars on eBay. The price would have to go many orders of magnitude higher even than that, before it would be cost-effective to make new ones.
Sure, which is why modern designers tend to use fairly common tubes. But my original post was in response to the idea that the knowledge of how to make a vacuum tube circuit has somehow been lost. :)

Obviously, it's a very niche market (sort of like super-8) that has hung on because there are aesthetic advantages to tubes vis-a-vis the way they sound.

There are plenty of factories cranking out the 12AX7A, the 6V6 and the 6L6.
Post Reply