Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization

[Robert Hodge <rjhodge@xxxxxxx>]

Not even film can be spliced automatically due to the fact that it
shrinks
and will not fit on a splicer fixture designed to accept non shrunken
film.
As the shrinkage percentage can vary widely in both longitudinal and
horizontal planes, I suspect that any attempt to automate it will be
doomed to failure. 

Yes, it takes a skilled preson to do it correctly !  Without Question
!!

R. Hodge 

Robert Hodge,
Senior Engineer
Belfer Audio Archive
Syracuse University
222 Waverly Ave .
Syracuse N.Y. 13244-2010

315-443- 7971
FAX-315-443-4866

>>> tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5/17/2007 3:53 PM >>>
Boy, if it were my company jewels (assets), I sure wouldn't trust a
robot to fix splices. That's a 
real skill that takes a skilled person. Remember that film is
sproketed, so perhaps 
splice-fix-automation is easier to design.

Also, why do you say "ALL" polyester tape needs baking? Where do you
get that? Only certain types of 
know sticky-shed tapes from certain eras need baking.

Instead of taking the typical engineer road and trying to invent some
overblown gadget, companies 
and institutions should realize the need to spend what it takes to get
skilled labor to do the job 
right. Skilled labor can do a better job working with relatively simple
and non-costly setups. The 
biggest threat to archiving is mass-inefficiency and duplicated labor
because of non-communication 
and fiefdom/stovepipe mentalities. Again, better to invest in the
skilled personnel to run these 
organizations correctly.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Smolian" <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization


> If we're going to discuss this a possible solution, we need to look
at the inevitable  problems 
> that will arise and figure out ways to deal with them beforehand.
>
> Splices have to be checked and remade, tape baked, etc., etc., etc. 
That's real reel time.  If 
> that is not done, there will be a lot of crashing and (non disc)
burning.
>
> Have the film people come up with an automatic splicer (for pre
digital film?)  If so, perhaps 
> that technology could be applied to tape, at least, acetate based. 
ALL polyester would have to be 
> baked and quickly also run through the auto-resplicer, should one
exist, befor the tape becomes 
> sticky again.
>
> There will surely be a need for pressure pad machines, with tape
candidates requiring their use 
> having been selected by a human, since flatening curled tape
naturally is time consuming.
>
> We may have to live with out-of-phase stereo in first level storage
and correct it at playback.
>
> So let's look at this not as a problem but as a design issue.
>
> The sky will fall only if we let it.
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andes, Donald" <Donald.Andes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>
>
> Since we're mostly in agreement, I'll try keep my responses short.
>
> See below...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Karl Miller
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:21 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
>
> "Andes, Donald" <Donald.Andes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ***It's most likely that our Archeologist friends are better than we
at
> developing cost effective plans to achieve their goal, which may be
> easier when justifying project costs against the collection of
> "priceless" artifacts. It is also very possible that we're comparing
> apples to oranges, as they most likely have very different funding
> sources.
>
> **Over the years I have reviewed many grant applications for audio
> preservation projects. The content and methodology have ranged from
well
> considered to the absurd. The question really that comes to my mind
is
> the notion of cost effective. Grant funding is, by design, not
> predicated on notions of "cost effective." Also, very few proposals
I
> have read, address questions of efficiency. It is my thinking that
cost
> effective means that it can pay for itself. I believe that the
> copyrights in the US, and the very functionalism of libraries (free
to
> the public) prevent libraries and archives from realizing
substantive
> financial return for their efforts.
>
> **I guess I don't see that we are comparing apple and oranges, unless
we
> choose to make such a differentiation. It seems to me that uncovering
a
> fragment of a clay pot, is not unlike reclaiming a bit of audio.
Once
> the "artifact" has been recovered, there is then the question of
> cataloging it and its preservation.
>
> The apples to oranges retort come from the fact that nothing you'll
> uncover by digging in the ground comes with copyright, performance,
and
> estate issues. Also, most of what Archeoloigists are looking for
have
> wider appeal, since it connect dots in the greater fabric of our
> existence. Uncovering a audio masterpiece may help us understand a
> composers intent, or help resolve a dispute over chord progressions
or
> unresolved notes, but it's still a very niche area. Again scope
comes
> into play here.
>
> ***2) The under appreciation/underpaying of Library and Archiving
staff:
> The world today (more than ever) comes down to profitability. Since
> libraries don't make profits, it falls in line that there not going
to
> be handling out high paying jobs working for a Library. High paying
jobs
> can easily be had in the Finance, Legal, and Medical worlds. This
has
> been true for years, but for librarians the cold hard facts haven't
> sunken in. Do I believe they should be paid more, of course I do. But
do
> I think they ever will, not in my lifetime.
>
> **I agree. I would also suggest that the available salaries for
> libraries will continue to decline due to the decline in use
statistics.
> I believe it will be increasingly difficult for those charged with
> making budget decisions to justify library budgets. However, one
needs
> to keep in mind that libraries and archives exist as "public
utilities"
> of a sort. They are funded as we fund our fire departments. They are
> seen as serving a common good. Yet, indeed, as the funding of public
> utilities is being more subject to funding predicated on use, (toll
> roads being but one example) libraries are very likely to experience
> even more substantive reductions in public funding.
>
> **My thinking is that libraries seem to be trying to compete in
areas
> where they have already lost. Libraries are trying to counter the
> defection to google and yahoo, by becoming movie theaters and snack
> bars.
>
> **On the other hand, I believe that libraries need to refocus their
> remaining resources more to the preservation of our intellectual
> history...being museums of a different sort.
>
> Not to play the pessimist, but I find Libararies will be following
> records stores to their demise, and I question what can be done, so
late
> in the game to change the inevitable.
>
> Also, Police and Fire services can be seen as government protection
> against liabilities. Libraries do not offer this function to the
> government with it serves.
>
> ***The fact is that we have massive amounts of history from the
1900's
> in every field. Are we missing important stuff, sure we are. But the
> unfortunate fact is that not enough people care enough about what's
> missing. And more so, not enough profitability can be had from
> collecting what was lost, to make it a worthwhile endeavor.
>
> **Indeed, that is my question, what can we realistically hope to
> preserve. Also tied into that question is the criteria used to
decide
> what we should preserve. Who has those skills? What sort of training
is
> needed?
>
> I believe we COULD preserve it all, however, we (the archival
community)
> need to start putting more time into large scale cohesive planning
and
> lobbying for funding to support it, instead of running around crying
> that the sky is falling.
>
> Just take a look at what Google books is doing. I'm not in 100%
> agreement with the plan or it's direction, but think of the scale.
Think
> of what they set out to accomplish. Strange, how no one IN the
community
> thinks on this level.
>
> ***Think of it: That lost treasure of sound, that we thought the
world
> would never hear again. Suddenly found, in pristine condition....How
> many downloads, CD's excetera could you possibly sell? Unless it the
> Beatles or Elvis it's most likely a lot LESS than you would think.
>
> **Having my own record company and having issued historic
performances,
> I have some practical experience. I can find no rationale for what
sells
> and what does not.
>
> **I am often reminded of the interest in the music of Mahler. While
> there were a few of the faithful around when he died...consider the
> notion that since he was not given much credit as a composer when he
> died, nobody preserved his manuscripts. We now have a market for
Mahler.
> It is difficult to second guess what product might find that
"Tipping
> point" and what might not. Thankfully, Mahler's music has been
> preserved. How do you know there is a market for a product unless
you
> have the product  and make it available?
>
> Well that's what the business is all about. We do market research,
sign
> artists, and take chances. We don't sign everyone we could, and we
don't
> always sign artists that are profitable. Regardelss, it's highly
> unlikely that any "found" audio will reap large sums of money;
> especially in this market already inundated with catalog releases
and
> slipping CD sales.
>
> ***3) Metadata concerns:
> Here's the white elephant in the room. Everyone wants to
> preserve/transfer/digitize, but guess what??? If you don't have a
> complete and correct metadata standard in place, you'll probably do
more
> harm then good. Once things are transferred, the value of storing
the
> original drops (to the non archivist) and people assume that they'll
> never need to go back to it. That is until, we try to understand
what
> the heck the file is, since your metadata seems spotty, and possibly
> incorrect.
>
> **Again, I agree completely. While great work is being done in Music
> Information Retrieval,  as for the metadata, libraries are having a
> rough time these days. I consider the aborted attempts to revise the
> cataloging rules. I believe it is time for a complete overhaul of
> cataloging (metadata preparation, description, and cataloging
> methodology).  It is my hope that some enterprising company will come
up
> with some highly efficient, less labor intensive, system for the
> creation of metadata, one that is so inexpensive that libraries will
be
> forced into making changes.
>
> **I believe it is irrational to expect libraries to do it on their
own.
> To abandon MARC voluntarily seems not only unlikely, but
> irrational...there is too much money invested in the old
methodology.
>
> Like Google books, I'm sure those outside the industry will figure
this
> all out for us, whether the solution is fool proof or not.
Regardless,
> it will just verify that our industry is lost and behind the times,
and
> our dismal salaries are in line with what they should be.
>
> ****4) Formatting/Migration issues:
> Yikes. This was hiding being the white elephant called metadata. And
> again, unless you figure this out UP FRONT, why bother digitizing?
>
> **I agree in part. While there are many valid points to be made to
> reformat recordings on stable media, I am a firm believer in
addressing
> the media which is chemically unstable.
>
> Obviously migrating to avoid permanemt loss is manditory, but
digitizing
> analog reels in stable condition without connecting all the dots
seems
> pointless to me, which is why I advocate against it.
>
> ****5) And finally to address your last statement:
> I think the archiving world has it's blinders on, and needs to pull
> back, rationalize a bit, and find it's place in the modern world of
> business, technology, culture, and government. It's not effort or
caring
> that this industry lacks; it's scope, direction and rational.
>
> **Again, I agree.
>
> **I believe that the pressures from the private sector are forcing
> libraries and archives to reconsider their place in society. I would
> wager that many of us have plenty of good ideas as to how to
> significantly increase library productivity and  perhaps even
provide
> some cost recovery...and I am not taking about coffee bars...I wonder
if
> there is anything that can be done from within the profession, or if
we
> just need to sit back and wait for the changes to be forced from the
> private sector. I guess I just don't see libraries and archives
taking
> the initiative to change...and sadly, I believe a great deal of our
> history stands to be lost in the process of waiting.
>
> **Sadly, I see libraries ignoring (I use the word ignore since such
a
> small percentage of ARL member's budgets is devoted to preservation)
> what I see to be their greatest resource, their unique holdings.
>
> **Yet, for me, the question remains, is there some way to
significantly
> realign priorities within libraries? It seems to me that the changes
> need to come from outside the preservation profession. The question
is,
> what is the best marketing strategy and how do we go about mounting
our
> advertizing campaign.
>
> Marketing and PR are taken to be in opposition to public use and
> non-profit, but the two can actually work had and hand quite nicely.
The
> problem goes back to re-identifying what libraries and archives are,
> what they could be, and what they should be. When I was a kid,
libraries
> didn't have any direct competition beyond the local bookstore. But
now
> with Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Blockbuster and Virgin Megastores
> competing in BOTH the brick and motar AND online space it's no
wonder
> the public isn't flocking to libraries. I myself haven't found the
need
> to go in years.
>
> **I used to wonder if part of the problem had to do with the way
society
> views the role of music. Our copyrights seem to deal with it as a
> consumable. Yet I then consider how we have such things as a "Museum
of
> Broadcasting." We seem to place some value on consumables. But do we
> place more value on "I Love Lucy" than we do on Perry Como...or
> "Omnibus" versus some of the more esoteric bits of our musical
heritage.
> It would seem the answer is yes. Then the question comes to my mind,
> will Lucy be as valued 100 years from now as say an Omnibus program
> featuring Frank Lloyd Wright. I wonder...then, should the library
and
> archive world be more concerned with what is not economically viable
and
> leave that which has a potential for "cost recovery," to the private
> sector.
>
> We all have to remember that the populous doesn't even scratch the
> surface beyond commercially availible music and film releases. I
enjoy
> genres of music that have never had commercial success in this
country,
> and most likely never will. I have literally thousands of records
that
> could vanish without anyone understanding their ramifications. But I
> understand, I'm in a niche, of a niche, of a niche. These recordings
> connect the dots for a few very low key genres but do not register
on
> the radar of the public scope.
>
> Question: If we could look back in great detail on the times of any
> ancient civilization, what would be more relivant: the tastes, and
> likings of the masses (aka the Mozarts, Michalangelos, and
> Shakespeares), or the concerns and pickings of the trivial ubergeeks
> like ourselves (obsure no name, short lived, fringe artists)?
>
> **Should an organization like EMI, donate (the objects and the
rights)
> whatever holdings it sees as having no revenue potential to the
> non-profit, public sector?
>
> EMI UK, does have a non-profit historic trust, and donates a wide
> variety of older reordings and technologies to it. I am currently
trying
> to establish something here in the US along those lines, but cannot
> discuss it any more than that.
>
> **Karl
>
> -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Music from EMI
>
> This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be
legally privileged. If you have 
> received it in error please advise the sender immediately by return
email and then delete it from 
> your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly 
> forbidden. If you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795
7000.
>
> This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
>
> Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
>
> Registered in England No 229231.
>
>
> -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/807 - Release Date:
5/16/2007 6:05 PM
>