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

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "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.
>
Well, there is an upper limit to the accuracy of any analog data-storage
technology...if nothing else, the molecular qualities of storage media
define a limit (albeit a VERY large one!). In fact, I would suppose this
would also apply to digital media?!

However, in most cases there is a much smaller natural limit...varying,
depending on the physical quality of each medium. Writing and drawing
were limited by the size of available pen points, for example...and
cunieform inscriptions by the size of the "scriber" used to create
them. Since there is also an accuracy limit with digital representations
of analog data, it would seem there would be a point for each storage
medium where the two forms of inaccuracy would coincide. For example,
the accuracy of a photographic image is limited by the "grain," or
the size of the particles which react to light...likewise, the
accuracy of a scanned image is limited by the number of "pixels"...
which in turn is dependent on the density of light-detecting entities.
Finally, there is another limit, since the data is to be interpreted
by humans (at least in most cases?)...and this is dependent on the
degree of inaccuracy our humain brains will notice! Obviously,
this last is the absolute limit (until working Artificial Intelligence
becomes feasible)!

It will be interesting (unless we blow ourselves into an accumulation
of radioactive particles?) to see what computers will be able to do
in 20 years! Twenty years AGO, practical minicomputers had just
become reality...and the (still in use) 640KB of internal memory
was available on the fanciest and most expensive machines, which
ran at (IIRC) 6MHz and had 10MB hard drives...

Steven C. Barr