[AV Media Matters] Let's just get rid of tape and optical media entirely

[James Lindner <jim@vidipax.com>]

This is an email I just posted on the AMIA list-serve and I fully expect
to get "roasted". Nevertheless I think it important to - dare I say -
provoke - some different thinking - so I offer this missive for your
consideration - kind members. I hope it inspires some dialog.

I wrote this email a few weeks ago and put it in my "hold" bin - I
wanted to
re-read it after some time had passed and wanted to see if I still felt
this
way. I have decided to post it - even though many of you will find it
quite
controversial - I hope that it will spur a conversation on this topic.
The
goal is to start a dialog in this direction.

In essence - I am now thinking that in addition to a medialess archive -
a
concept that I introduced a long time ago - we need to think in other
local
storage directions too - and one of those thoughts was brought on by a
comment Jim Wheeler made - as quoted below. Basically I wonder if we
should
just forget about Tape and optical media entirely for archival purposes
and
jump directly to hard drive server based systems. As time has gone on -
my
own answer to this question is, in general, yes, this is what we should
be
doing.

>I have mentioned that data systems have a lot of advantages but what
>data
>system would be satisfactory for storing uncompressed video?  At
>one Megabyte
>per frame, a two hour video requires about 216 Gigabytes!

I disagree with Jim W on this one.
I think that as time goes on this will be less and less of an issue.
History
has proven that to be the case - and as cost per gigabyte decreases the
cost
advantage of other media - specifically tape (ANY kind of tape - video,
data - whatever, other then the sticky stuff you use for gifts....) -
will
eventually disappear. And it will not take as long as people think it
will.
Current digibeta tapes cost around $50 for an hour storage. So the
question
really is when will 100 Gigabytes of disk(the approximate storage
requirement for 1 hour of uncompressed video) be competitive to the cost
of
tape. Right now the cost for this much storage on high performance
drives is
around $1000 - OK it is less then that - but the point is the
progression.
Next year it should be $500, 2 years should be $250 ( by now these type
of
drives are no longer high performance either), 3 years $125, 4 years
$62.50 - BINGO. Yeah - you can say that tape will get less expensive too
-
but is there REALLY any competition? This is historically what has
happened
with storage costs and capacities. We can't say for sure - but there is
very
strong history saying that it will. So there is an end in site to tape,
and
yes to film too. I don't have any problem with that - I am sure that
some of
you will - but that is OK . It also is a very strong argument for those
still talking about compressed video for archival purposes. In my
opinion as
time goes on there is less and less of a reason to even consider it. For
distribution - yes - but for archival purposes . . . . .Why bother? The
economic argument becomes more and more persuasive over time and the
benefits are very clear.

This also addresses the issues mentioned by RAH. Some of the reasons
that
all those materials were lost was because of the amount of space
required to
house them, the costs associated with maintaining climate control, and
probably the issue of just plain old loss (as in can't find it), and of
course chemical deterioration. The economics above applies to multiple
copies housed in separate locations. You should not have single copies
of
ANY media type - film, tape, DVD - whatever - and disk is no different.
I
don't think that anyone in the IT community thinks about archival
storage
without thinking back ups in different locations. As time goes on it
gets
cheaper and cheaper and I might add smaller - there is no real reason to
even consider it (and an IT professional never would) - we have allot to
learn from them. Actually if you want to use a model, our friends in the
IT
departments are pretty good at keeping backups and having executable
disaster plans. They have had more money to do it with and have gotten
very
good at it over the years - there is a whole professional field in data
center management relating to archiving strategies and certification for
data centers and managers in the disaster prevention area.

Have there been disasters? Sure. Will there be more problems - sure.
Will
there be issues with media incompatibilities, and file incompatibilities
-
sure - But it is a heck of allot better then what we have now. No single
media type is forever. Technology marches on.... I think that even Kodak
would agree with that. Film has gotten better too - but at some time it
is
very clear that a newer technology that offers more capability at the
same
or better cost will  replace other technology. There is just no reason
for
it not to. And if you change the density to Terra instead of Giga - does
it
apply to film too - yes it does. Have as much resolution as you want -
it
really does not matter in the long run.

We have installed 15 hours of uncompressed storage at full 601
resolution in
removable drives in the last few months. For those customers who desire
it I
fully expect to be delivering restored video and film transfers on hard
drives as uncompressed data by the end of the year. Hard to say whether
these will be "preservation masters"  - call them what you will - but
they
will be identical to the copies we will deliver on digital video tape
(actually Digi-Beta copies are compressed so the disk versions are
technically more accurate). We are also going in the direction of
installing
a very very fast data backbone - the idea being that customers that are
also
on a fast backbone can receive this data directly in their server
systems,
yes in real time or almost in real time. The technology exists to do
this -
there is still a great deal of work for us to do in this area - but I do
believe that this is a very important area for archives to participate
in.

 So what options to choose for preservation masters? This has always
been a
difficult question to answer. To a great extent I think that it depends
on
the needs of the specific client. The customer will ultimately make that
decision, and it will vary from customer to customer. We will continue
to
recommend preservation masters on both Digital and Analog tape formats.
For
many clients this media  will co-exist with server based systems - but I
can
foresee a time when that will no longer be the case. More and more it
seems
to me that the ideal blend of preservation technology includes peer to
peer
"medialess archive" topologies coupled with disk based storage
solutions,
managed in an IT environment with multiple locations, disaster planning,
and
real data management. All compressed using lossLESS compression using
open
source compression algorithms to obsolete the obsolescence issue. I will
run
out of the room now in order to not be pelted with film cans........

And oh yes - these technologies DO require electricity........

James Lindner

General Manager VidiPax Division
VidiPax - The Magnetic Media Restoration Company

Executive Vice-President
Loudeye Technologies
NASDAQ Symbol:LOUD

VidiPax
450 West 31 Street
New York, N.Y.  10001
212-563-1999 ext. 102
www.vidipax.com

Moderator: AV Media Matters Listserve
To subscribe to AV Media Matters Listserve send an email to:
AV-Media-Matters-subscribe@topica.com

James Lindner

General Manager VidiPax Division
VidiPax - The Magnetic Media Restoration Company

Executive Vice-President
Loudeye Technologies
NASDAQ Symbol:LOUD

VidiPax
450 West 31 Street
New York, N.Y.  10001
212-563-1999 ext. 102
www.vidipax.com

Moderator: AV Media Matters Listserve
To subscribe to AV Media Matters Listserve send an email to:
AV-Media-Matters-subscribe@topica.com