RE: [AV Media Matters] biggest sticking point being the lack of awidespread for

[Bob Savage <bsavage@stanford.edu>]

I had said:

>>Unfortunately I would have to say that no "standards" exist
>>for archival reformatting of video; the biggest sticking point being the
>>lack of a wide-spread format that does not use compression.
>>Your (unappealing) choices are to let the stock deteriorate without doing
>>anything, or pick a format that uses compression.

Tony Gardner commented:

>In archiving, preserving, it is the lifetime of the support - the integrity
>of the bits of the analogue signal - which must be the prime concern.

I respond:

These are actually two different things. "lifetime of the support" I
addressed in my "deteriorate without doing anything" remark,
"integrity of the bits of the analogue signal" I addressed with my
reference to compression; the OED defines 'integrity' as "The
condition of having no part or element taken away or wanting."
Compression schemes function by throwing information away; to call
the result something which preserves the integrity of the source
signal is to misspeak.

>Here and now we are, often in a position to have to make a decision. Doing
>nothing can be a cop out. So, life is compromises, the stuff of management.
>Make rational well informed compromises. Get the right questions in the
>right order. Don't get hung up on single issues, which don't stand up to
>informed holistic debate. Don't (only) dream of a better tomorrow, take
>responsible decisions now.

I completely agree, *and* I believe that this is pretty much a
restatement of my position as quoted above. One has two primary
choices: risk a catastrophic loss of the video signal due to the
inherent instability of the support, or suffer a loss of integrity
of the signal due to compressive reformatting.

>"Your (unappealing) choices are to let the stock deteriorate without doing
>anything, or pick a format that uses compression". Come on. You don't mean
>that. This is the real world.

I do mean it. A choice must be made. It seems apparent to me that
often the decision will be to reformat using compression because the
relative loss of signal integrity from compression is outweighed by
the risks engendered by leaving that signal on deteriorating host
media. On the other hand, the person responsible for the maintenance
of the collection at hand should make an informed decision, and not
"get hung up on single issues" such as the instability of the signal
support, to the point where they ignore other issues such as loss of
signal integrity.

Bob Savage
Media Preservation Unit
Stanford University Libraries
bsavage@stanford.edu