[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AV Media Matters] The FILE is the thing ! Was -Digitizing Audio and Video

I love it when the Jims discuss things!

Jim (Wheeler) I agree with your point that archives cannot afford things--but, from my experience, archives often can't afford the initial

migration from the original format.

Jim (Lindner), I agree with your points about migration being the only
way to ensure that files remain readable. In your point (4), below, you
discuss the application to read the file as one of the challenges. I see that
point involving any media that you lock away for extended periods of time:
disk, tape, disc, flash ram, whatever. However, the challenge of morphing
files from one form to another is far more daunting than the challenge of migrating files from one medium to another.

Let's (for the sake of this discussion) agree that "morphing" the file means changing it in a trivial or non-trivial way so a later application

may read it. In this process, you may break the ability of the
application that generated it to read it. Let's take, for example, a Microsoft Word document that was created in version 6.0, the Windows 3.1 version. When
you open that document in Word 2002, and save it, Version 6.0 can no longer read it, unless you use the "save as old version" command from Word
2002. When you "save as old version" you lose features that you embedded in
Word 2002.

Note, however, that this morphing is done by the application which, over
at least a short period of time can at least demonstrate read compatibility

(to some degree) with older versions of the file.

Another example from word processing. I have some files that are in Word

Perfect 4.2, I believe. Microsoft Word 97 and 2002 do not recognize
these files. If I open them in Word Perfect for DOS version 5.0 and then save them WP 5.0 has created files that MS Word 97 and 2002 CAN read and then

save in their native formats. This is an example of a two-step MORPHING process, and one of the things that Jim (L) rightfully is afraid of with

media files.

In general, the concept of data MIGRATION, is copying the same file from

medium one to medium two assuring that it is not corrupted in any way. I
am not sure how much MORPHING of the file happens during this MIGRATION process, as the MIGRATION generally happens at the operating
system/storage file system level rather than at the application level.

Let's look at another simple example from the word processing world--the

reason for this will become clear in a moment. If I have a document in Word, I can fully edit it and all of the component parts are accessible
for modification. If I publish this as an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) document, I no

longer have the document in as editable a form as when I had it in Word.

That is the beauty of the system, that is the pitfall of the system. I suspect that Adobe (and if they're no longer around, someone else) will maintain long-term readability of PDF files on a variety of operating systems (including the Palm, by the way). However the PDF is not the
same as the Word document for repurposing (editing) for future use. I can capture pieces of the PDF, but, for example, the graphics are
down-rez'd and the entire document is often (and should be) password protected for extracting pieces.

This is where MXF and AAF come in. These are universal formats. In some respects, one can think of AAF as the Word document with all of the instructions and all of the pieces for assembling the final video. The final video, in a flattened form, can be distributed as an MXF file--and

that is, at least on a simple level, the moving image equivalent of the Adobe Acrobat file.

AAF is certainly an emerging standard and it, in itself, is changing
over time.

So, I think we all agree that the file is the thing (thanks Jim (?) for
a good subject line), but I'm not sure that we agree or understand how
that file will be treated.

If we assume that the file has to be MORPHED as it is MIGRATED that is a

new responsibility to put on the IT professionals as I understand their
job description. There are artistic judgments in assessing how to MORPH a file--at least to the extent of "what options do you still want to do on

the file." Perhaps the options can remain completely open, but rich-content, editable files such as AAF pose huge challenges for maintaining compatibility over time.

One of these challenges is that the transforms applied to media are to
some extent proprietary and the transform in software application "A" may
sound different from an equivalent function in software application "B." When
we add in the option of dedicated hardware processing (yes, that is still done, especially in video, just ask the folks like Quantel) then the
gamut of processing possibilities broadens. One of the features of AAF is the ability of proprietary processes to encode "dark metadata" known only to

that proprietary process. You will need that proprietary process to
render the file.

Bottom line, we're best off -- in my opinion -- of storing individual elements as well as rendered copies in the way the producer wanted to
see them. In essence the final PDF plus the individual text and graphic elements that went into the PDF. This is not so we can create the final
PDF again--we already have that--but so we can repurpose pieces of that to satisfy different demands of different revenue streams by using the same

underlying data in differing combinations to tell different stories.

If we accept that limitation, then the MORPHING process becomes less challenging and might be able to be done as part of the MIGRATION
process, but I still see the MORPHING as a separate step. I also see PDFs, JPGs,
and MXFs as long-term readable formats that will be supported at least for input well into the future, unlike Word Perfect 4.2 for DOS.

But now, back to Jim W.'s initial question, what do we do for archives
who don't have the budget and their material is wasting away? We had a long discussion on AMIA-L and a bit on ARSCLIST about an audio archive that
we suspect is wasting away due to too-high humidity in their storage

We took a poll and received mixed responses--no consensus--but the responses were predictable based on the prejudices and experiences of
the respondents. The bottom line, however, is that it's probably less costly--at least for the near term--to fix the environmental problems
than it is to transfer the complete collection--and then maybe do it again in

20-40 years. There is no funding for a file-based, IT-based central
archive for this material. There should be, but there isn't.

I[ve deleted the posts by the two Jims--if you want me to forward them
to you, please let me know.



This email was sent to: waiscool@cool.conservation-us.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP8EW.b4jznQ.d2Fpc2Nv
Or send an email to: AV-Media-Matters-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]