Can I believe Popular Photograpy article about Ektachrome
Routh
Ektachrome films will last one hundred and twenty years. Do you think that
could be true?
I was thinking of moving from Kodachrome 200 to Ektachrome 200. The
advantages with Ektachrome are many - more exposures, latitude and
pushability to 320 ASA and 640 ASA, and local processing. The only thing
holding me back is that the archival quality of Kodachrome is a known fact
and proved with time. The archival quality of Ektachrome is a theoretical
promise.
I'd like to see some other peoples opinions before I change.
Thanks.
A. Routh
philf...@my-deja.com
misprint. My old ektachromes (late fifties to early 70s) are in fairly
rough shape. Kodachromes from the same era look fine. All stored
together. The only E6 film I have that seems to be holding up as well
as Kodachrome are some Fuji test rolls I shot in 66 or 67 and again in
76 or 77. I didn't care for the color, but they are holding up fine.
Another note. Ansco (Agfa) chromes from the late 70s are so far gone I
can't imagin trying to print them color. I'm not even sure I want to
take the time to restore them as b&w
--
When in danger
Or in doubt
Run in circles
Scream and shout
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
LL
Kodachrome or Ektachrome. The choice will depend on personal preference as
well as the claims of others w/c may or may not reflect archival realities.
Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but, I believe the modern E-6
process began about 1978. The films philfflash refers to were probably of the
E-4 development variety and were most probably less stable than the current
E-6 process. I have Fujichrome 400 from 1983 that has yet to turn/be affected
so my geuss is that the current E-6 processs and
Ektachrome/Fujichrome/Agfachrome films might be more stable than in times
past.
There are only a few ways to go about this; accept what Henry Wilhelm/Pop
Photo says as fact (or a good prediction of life expectancy), do your own
"accelerated aging tests using your own standards, see for yourself in 100
years whether their claims are true and come a'knocking on Kodak/Rochesters
door as a very, very old man complaining if they start to fade significantly
before the year 2099, shoot only Kodachrome, shoot Ektachrome/etc. or a mix
of Ektachrome/etc. and Kodachrome when shooting "archival shots."
Anybody can say/claim anything. They might be right but then again they might
be wrong. Accelerated aging tests do not use real world conditions so at best
they are only an indicator.
If you have the refridgerator space, wanted to shoot Ektachrome, but don't
want to "tempt fate" you might consider either freezing your slides (follow
Wilhelms/other's guidelines in this regard) or you might want to convert your
most precious images to digital format and possibly output to film in 40 or
50 years (if your still around) onto whatever more stable products are out
then. (I don't know if there is a service bureau that will output digital
files to Kodachrome, but it sounds like a great idea). In a few years, when
digital still cameras reach about the 7 megapixel level (my minimum standard
for highish quality work at 8x10" @ 300 ppi), you might want to directly
"archive onto digital" and leave film out of the equation. But there is a
disadvantage to this that doesn't get enough press in my opinion... The
problem w/ digital (whether you use it as a primary recording medium or as an
alternate/copying medium for your images) is that no one knows w/c file
formats or media will be readable in 100 years, much less even 10 years from
now since this is an area of planned obsolscence driven (as film formats are)
by the economic demands of the market. But film has shown a longevity as far
as formats are concerned especially in standard film formats such as 35mm, 2
1/4, 4x5," 5x7," and 8x10." A 100 years (or less from) now you should be able
to print (assuming there are still printing papers and enlargers around) most
if not all of these formats conventionally and chances are that you might be
able to scan these formats into whatever types of scanners still exist since
there is such a huge base of images that have been taken in these formats for
many years. Who is to say you'll be able to open a popular digital format
like a TIFF in 3o years or if Photoshop 37 will be able to open those
Photoshop 5 files you have. In the end, all this is speculation and only time
will tell, but a good geuss would be that film in one form or another will be
around to stay and that any film you have in 35mm slide format, Ektachrome or
Kodachrome will be able to be scanned into a computer (or your
television/toaster/microwave/fax machine ;-)) and corrected for any fading
and outputted to your favorite medium of choice (film, inkjet, or some other
future medium). Again, all is speculation, both on my part, your, and even
Henry Wilhelm's and Kodak/etc. so the best thing you can do is to way all the
factors and cast your lot w/ whatever scenario of film/storage works for you.
In the mean time, make and project only copies of your slides or get them
made up into "normal" or digital prints (onto conventional photo paper,
inkjet paper or etc.) for viewing.
Make your decision about w/c film to shoot and keep shooting! As it says on
the box, all dyes will fade in time... If you want to be absolutely sure your
images will be here for at least the next 100 years either stick to
Kodachrome (w/c has somewhat of a track record), shoot all black and white
and hand tint your prints ;-), or use some kind of pigment color print
process to print on like Evercolor or some other long lasting pigment
process, wait 100 years to see if your Ektachromes haven't faded or if there
is a more archival Ektachrome/E-? processs by then and freeze your slides.
As my friend Ken Thomson likes to say (not just about archivability but about
everything) "we shall see..."
Regards,
Lewis (now shooting most every film) Lang
In article <7qg3pv$7df$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.h
Fine art photography from the real to the surreal and beyond!
Anthony
news:7qfk6u$ibn$2...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I read in the April 1999 issue of Popular Photography that the new
> Ektachrome films will last one hundred and twenty years. Do you think
that
> could be true?
If you scan your films with a good, high-resolution scanner, it won't matter
whether or not they last 120 years. In 120 years, there may be no way to
print or project them, anyway.
How many slides do you have from 1879?
-- Anthony
Jim Williams
>> Ektachrome films will last one hundred and twenty years. Do you think
>that could be true?
That could be what Kodak claims. Whether they'll really last that long
would depend a lot on how they're stored and how they're used. For example,
Kodachrome films last longer than Ektachrome if you just keep the slides
stored in the dark, but Ektachromes last longer than Kodachromes if you
project the slides frequently.
>
>If you scan your films with a good, high-resolution scanner, it won't
matter
>whether or not they last 120 years. In 120 years, there may be no way to
>print or project them, anyway.
Oh, come on, the chances of being able to project a slide in 120 years are
a lot better than the chances of being able to read an "obsolete" file
format off an "ancient" CD-ROM on the computer equipment of the same era.
All you need to project a slide is a lens, a light source, and a dark room!
On the other hand, computer equipment and file formats vanish really
quickly -- it's a huge problem for the library industry right now. Even
some U.S. Census computer data from 1960 is no longer available because the
only equipment that can read and process it today is in computer museums.
>
>How many slides do you have from 1879?
Just the other day I was looking at a collection of black-and-white
glass-plate "lantern slides" from about that era. They look fine and
projecting them is no problem if you've got an appropriate holder. On the
other hand, just try retrieving computer data from even the most popular
formats of 20 years ago, such as 5-1/4" floppy disks for CP/M operating
systems...
ALLEN VESTAL
Jim Williams wrote in message ...
recorder as a storage medium. It does not however, vanish overnight
Transferring files from one type of media to another has always been
possible and will probably continue to be so. Who would buy the latest and
greatest super hyper plasma drive if they had to abandon every file they had
ever created? File formats also change but I have five programs on my system
now and they all support file conversions from formats I have not seen in
years. When you see a format losing support it is time to convert them. Time
consuming? Yes, but possible and much safer than telling the wife you are
taking over her freezer to store film. I can't believe anyone would be
worried about getting a file off of a CD 30 years from now, some gnarly old
geezer (probably me) will be around to do it for you for a "nominal fee".
eMeL
>Computer equipment does change occasionally, my first computer used a tape
>recorder as a storage medium. It does not however, vanish overnight
>Transferring files from one type of media to another has always been
>possible and will probably continue to be so. Who would buy the latest and
>greatest super hyper plasma drive if they had to abandon every file they
had
>ever created? File formats also change but I have five programs on my
system
>now and they all support file conversions from formats I have not seen in
>years. When you see a format losing support it is time to convert them.
Time
>consuming? Yes, but possible and much safer than telling the wife you are
>taking over her freezer to store film. I can't believe anyone would be
>worried about getting a file off of a CD 30 years from now, some gnarly old
>geezer (probably me) will be around to do it for you for a "nominal fee".
You are very optimistic...
Format conversion is not only expensive (in terms of both time and money)
but some physical storage is simply no longer available outside of very rare
and specialized (read: expensive!) centers.
Try to convert Wang word processing files stored on 8 inch floppies...It is
almost as easy as playing your grandpa's wire recordings (pre-tape...)
Also, CD-ROM is not archival... The medium is considered non-permanent, with
limited and definite life span. Ah, and stuff on magnetic storage (hard and
floppy drives, tapes...) is also susceptible to magnetic radiation...
I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over the
most robust digital storage.
Michael
philf...@my-deja.com
tape
> recorder as a storage medium. It does not however, vanish overnight
> Transferring files from one type of media to another has always been
> possible and will probably continue to be so. Who would buy the
latest and
> greatest super hyper plasma drive if they had to abandon every file
they had
> ever created? File formats also change but I have five programs on my
system
> now and they all support file conversions from formats I have not
seen in
> years. When you see a format losing support it is time to convert
them. Time
> consuming? Yes, but possible and much safer than telling the wife you
are
> taking over her freezer to store film. I can't believe anyone would be
> worried about getting a file off of a CD 30 years from now, some
gnarly old
> geezer (probably me) will be around to do it for you for a "nominal
fee".
>
>
place that does, copies, faxing, and general quick printing. You can
take your 8 inch CPM disks there to have them transferred to Zip or CD-
R. I will be the first to admit the computer industry is awful quick to
abandon the old, but I also notice that my current wordprocessor can
read WordStar files. I also agree that the surest way to archive film
is digitally.
Canonhead
Anthony
news:B3F1CC1...@24.3.242.51...
> Oh, come on, the chances of being able to project a slide in 120 years are
> a lot better than the chances of being able to read an "obsolete" file
> format off an "ancient" CD-ROM on the computer equipment of the same era.
The image will have been copied to other, more recent media by then, or the
original equipment needed to read the CDs will have been kept with them. In
either case, the CD will be just as usable as a slide, and it will have the
added advantage of not having deteriorated at all during the interim.
> All you need to project a slide is a lens, a light source, and a dark
room!
> On the other hand, computer equipment and file formats vanish really
> quickly -- it's a huge problem for the library industry right now.
See above. Either you move the images to new media when you change
equipment, or you keep the old equipment around to read the old media. If
you do this, you'll never have a problem.
> Just the other day I was looking at a collection of black-and-white
> glass-plate "lantern slides" from about that era. They look fine and
> projecting them is no problem if you've got an appropriate holder.
They looked worse when they were new than most slides today look after 20
years.
> On the other hand, just try retrieving computer data from even the
> most popular formats of 20 years ago, such as 5-1/4" floppy disks for
> CP/M operating systems...
See above.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:EK%y3.83$uf3.8...@newsie.cais.net...
> You are very optimistic...
Not at all. This has historically been the case.
> Try to convert Wang word processing files stored on 8 inch
> floppies...It is almost as easy as playing your grandpa's
> wire recordings (pre-tape...)
I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them. I should think that
would be self-evident, but apparently it is not. No archive (analog or
digital) is going to do you any good if you throw out the equipment you need
to read the archive.
> Also, CD-ROM is not archival...
But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
doesn't have to be.
> I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over
the
> most robust digital storage.
We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
you'll regret your decision.
-- Anthony
NJFotomakr
>> Ektachrome films will last one hundred and twenty years. Do you think
>that
>> could be true?
>
moot point.......you'll be dead.
Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace
Black and White Photography
Only me...
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:936185371.3...@newscene.newscene.com...
> I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
> have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
> keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them.
Until they break down due to entropy of course, and can't replace/repair
them.
>
> But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
> doesn't have to be.
But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN transfer, or what?
How do you decide it's time to make new files? Every 10 years? It all
seems
no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>
> > I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over
> the
> > most robust digital storage.
>
> We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
> you'll regret your decision.
I'll be willing to compare my archivaly printed, and toned prints to
your digital stuff in 500 years never mind 200.
It's all [pointless anyway. I'll be dead then, and the baton is passed
to my children/family/friends/employer (delete as appropriate). So long as
my trannies will last, let's say 50 years (I'll be 81) that will do for me.
David.
Only me...
> Ektachrome films will last one hundred and twenty years. Do you think
that
> could be true?
Never heard that one. However, I've heard that 70 years without
noticeable loss is the theoretical figure for most Fuji E6 films. If this
is true, then that will do for me, since I'll be well and truly dead by then
:-)
David.
Only me...
ALLEN VESTAL <AVE...@SWBELL.NET> wrote in message
news:lq_y3.389$1I2....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> Computer equipment does change occasionally
LOL... That HAS to be the understatement of the decade! Computer
equipment changes faster than most can keep up with it. In as little as 10
years, let alone 120, all our formats will probably have changed. 10 years
ago, there was no such thing as CD-ROM, or Zip disks, or Jazz Drives. IN 10
years time, those will have been superseded by another technology. I cant
read my floppies in my zip drive, and I probably won't be able to read my
zip disks in the "new" technology drives of 10 years hence. All this means
continual changing of formats for your entire archive. It's not very good
is it, really? All I need at present is a dry, dark place to keep my
slides, which, E6 or not, will be useable when I'm on my deathbed. I can
scan them into whatever format is in vogue at the time, and they're cheap,
reliable, and better than a digital storage method.
Long live silver halide.
, my first computer used a tape
> recorder as a storage medium. It does not however, vanish overnight
> Transferring files from one type of media to another has always been
> possible and will probably continue to be so.
But when you've got thousands of files, isn't it a pain in the arse to
have to do this every few years, whenever a new format arrives? It takes
WEEKS. Some picture libraries are only just finishing the process when
another format arrives. It's a full time job for some. If you have a
couple of hundred slides, it's a big enough job, but can you imagine if you
have hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions?
> Who would buy the latest and
> greatest super hyper plasma drive if they had to abandon every file they
had
> ever created? File formats also change but I have five programs on my
system
> now and they all support file conversions from formats I have not seen in
> years. When you see a format losing support it is time to convert them.
Time
> consuming? Yes, but possible and much safer than telling the wife you are
> taking over her freezer to store film. I can't believe anyone would be
> worried about getting a file off of a CD 30 years from now, some gnarly
old
> geezer (probably me) will be around to do it for you for a "nominal fee".
This is true, and I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. I'm just
suggesting that carefully, and securely storing your slides in archival
conditions is perhaps the best way to go about it. Scan them as a backup,
as I do, but I'll always be relying upon the original slide rather than the
rather flaky, volatile digital storage mediums. Magnetic media is FAR to
easy to damage, and CD-Rs are only reported to have an archival life of
about 30 years apparently anyway, so what's the point. Just take good care
of your slides.
David.
eMeL
>I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
>have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
>keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them.
Easier said than done...
Just ask sound archivists (who are facing a very similar problem of no
longer supported, detoriating media, nonexistent hardware and no skills to
rebuild/restore ancient equipment...)
And don't forget that we are talking about archival permanence here...That
means a long time...!
In a brief history of computers there have been so many different form of
storage, that not all are commonly available now. Also, any mass storage
subsystem requires at least 4 components:
- the hardware itself (say, a disk drive)
- the controller (connection to the system)
- support of the operating system (reading of the physical disk)
- software to read the logical data
CPM machines were still current 15 years ago...try to find one now...Or an
early Atari...
>But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
>doesn't have to be.
Copying is an option for very few images, but is absolutely not feasible for
large data repositories. Even the simplest same-medium-to-same-medium
copying costs a lot and takes a lot of time. If you have a 1000 images
this is a non-issue, but it becomes a huge obstacle for a hundred-million
images archive...
>We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
>you'll regret your decision.
B&W prints are long-lasting...that has been established.
As for slides, Kodachrome is stable enough, and I expect E-6 process films
to catch up soon. I'd rather have an original to scan and re-scan as
needed, than be stuck with a digital "original which may suddenly become
corrupted or inaccessible...As an aside, even with a full digital process,
I'll probably opt
for a final image to be output on film...
Digital imaging intersects my two skills: photography (which I've been
practicing in one form or another for 30 years) and computers (I design
large-scale databases for a living.) Believe me, I wish that the computer
storage issue was as simple as you see it...
Michael
LL
Can you tell me the diet that allows you to be able to live 200 years from
now to do your comparing of digital vs. film longevity.
Don't tell me, wait, let me geuss...
Could it be "the archival diet"? ;-)
Lewis (would love tobe around 200 years from now to test the archivability of
digital vs. film, perhaps if I take half as many breaths I'll last twice as
long ;-), Methusala) Lang
In article <936185371.3...@newscene.newscene.com>,
"Anthony" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> eMeL <ab...@nospam.gov> wrote in message
> news:EK%y3.83$uf3.8...@newsie.cais.net...
>
> > You are very optimistic...
>
> Not at all. This has historically been the case.
>
> > Try to convert Wang word processing files stored on 8 inch
> > floppies...It is almost as easy as playing your grandpa's
> > wire recordings (pre-tape...)
>
> I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
> have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
> keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them. I should think that
> would be self-evident, but apparently it is not. No archive (analog or
> digital) is going to do you any good if you throw out the equipment you need
> to read the archive.
>
> > Also, CD-ROM is not archival...
>
> But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
> doesn't have to be.
>
> > I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over
> the
> > most robust digital storage.
>
> We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
> you'll regret your decision.
>
> -- Anthony
>
>
--
Photography without a mind is like Kodachrome without sunshine - LL
Visit my web site "LEWISVISION" http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.h
Fine art photography from the real to the surreal and beyond!
LL
500 years? Can I have your diet too? I'd love to last as long as some oil
paintings (without the yellowing of course) ;-0
Funny, isn't it how everybody has a different standard of what they consider
"archival" or an archival medium? For a painting to last only a hundred years
would be a joke, but because it is rare for color film lasts a 100 years (or
more, depending on who/what tests you believe) we consider that "archivlal."
So far the longest lived photographic medium that's proven would be black and
white (glass plates). Digital and even storage on good old Kodachrome is
speculative w/ Kodachrome only having actually proved itself at roughly 50+
years. Perhaps in another 50 years (or less? or more?) we'll see how long the
current crop of E-6 films holds up, until then, as you've said before, its
all speculation. Perhaps a good strategy would be to keep shooting film and
"short term archive" (20 years or less) digital copies of our best images
that can be output either as film (on the better/longer lasting films they'll
have then) or transferred to a different file format and/or digital medium
(assuming as Anthony said, I believe, either you or whoever keeps the readers
in order to do it). Multiple copies of images in different places are also
good insurance against loss, theft or acts of nature. It might be too
expensive and/or time consuming to do this w/ all your image but maybe a core
100-500 images are worth this "archival treatment." Also, freezing, (for
those of us who either don't have wives or who have understanding wives) I
believe doubles the life of your film for every ten degrees colder you freeze
it at (don't remember where I read this, possibly Henry Wilhelm?).
Happy shooting and archiving to you all,
Lewis (still shooting on film but storing some images on that ancient form of
media the CD) Lang
Lewis (trying to get by through each and every day) Lang
In article <7qjd4s$4cn$3...@gxsn.com>,
"Only me..." <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:936185371.3...@newscene.newscene.com...
>
> > I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
> > have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
> > keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them.
>
> Until they break down due to entropy of course, and can't replace/repair
> them.
>
> >
> > But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
> > doesn't have to be.
>
> But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN transfer, or what?
> How do you decide it's time to make new files? Every 10 years? It all
> seems
> no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>
> >
> > > I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over
> > the
> > > most robust digital storage.
> >
> > We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
> > you'll regret your decision.
>
> I'll be willing to compare my archivaly printed, and toned prints to
> your digital stuff in 500 years never mind 200.
>
> It's all [pointless anyway. I'll be dead then, and the baton is passed
> to my children/family/friends/employer (delete as appropriate). So long as
> my trannies will last, let's say 50 years (I'll be 81) that will do for me.
>
> David.
>
>
--
David Albrecht
> > But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
> > doesn't have to be.
>
> But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN transfer, or what?
> How do you decide it's time to make new files? Every 10 years? It all
> seems
> no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>
> >
than analog storage. However, CD-Rs are less than $3 each and copy ~660M
of images. I routinely make multiple copies of CD-Rs that are important
to me and the copy is identical to the original. Further, while it takes
a while to write a CD-R, it isn't my time, all I have to do is kick the
process off and then wander off (or go to bed). As the next generation of
storage comes on line it is pretty trivial to copy the entire contents of
multiple CD-Rs to whatever this next medium may be (writeable DVDs, etc.)
and again there is no quality loss in the process. Every ten years is
probably extreme, but why not? It is easy to do compared to copying
the analog media.
For large scale operations, it is quite feasible to automate the process
with stack loading CDROM changers and writers.
For archival in the museum sense, the digital medium is a poor choice simply
because of the level of technology required to retrieve the information. If I
am interested in maintaining a personal collection that I will be overseeing
for my lifetime it is likely to be much easier to keep quality digital scans
than it is to keep quality analog equivalents.
Dave
SpooRL
Yes, but my grandfather's b&w negatives are still alive after 80+ years.
Pictures of things like West Side Park in Chicago where the Cubs actually won a
world series. I would like to leave my grandchildren something more interesting
than a weathered tombstone and a cracked souvenir plate from the world's
fair...
Rick Spoo
Russell Williams
>Unless something has changed drastically there must have been a
> misprint. My old ektachromes (late fifties to early 70s) are in fairly
> rough shape. Kodachromes from the same era look fine.
Many things have changed drastically since the 1950s-1970s, and the
longevity of Ektachrome and other E6 (or E3 or E4, at that time)
films is definitely one of them. I dunno about the 120 years
(check Wilhelm Imaging Research's web site for up to date
*estimates*), but Ektachrome lasts a lot longer than it
used to. So do prints. For example, the prints I have from 25
years ago are seriously discolored. Prints on Fuji Crystal Archive
paper made today should last 75 years. As for my faded prints, I'm
going to scan the Kodachromes and reprint on inkjet.
Russell Williams
not speaking for Adobe Computer
Anthony
news:7qjd4s$4cn$3...@gxsn.com...
> Until they break down due to entropy of course, and can't replace/repair
> them.
They are no more prone to that than film.
> But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN transfer, or what?
> How do you decide it's time to make new files?
Whenever I see deterioration or want to move to new media.
> It all seems no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
It isn't (since all digital media are actually analog storage mechanisms,
anyway). The advantage is that you can copy the images as many times as
necessary with _zero_ loss, and that the images will show _zero_
deterioration as long as they are readable at all. This means that, in the
end, digital wins.
> I'll be willing to compare my archivaly printed, and toned prints to
> your digital stuff in 500 years never mind 200.
Do you know of anything analog right now that is 500 years old and has not
deteriorated? I can point out digital things that have been around for
thousands of years and have not changed at all.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Easier said than done...
Do whatever you think is best. Time will tell.
> Copying is an option for very few images, but is absolutely
> not feasible for large data repositories.
Sure it is. A lot of repositories do it every night, with backups.
> If you have a 1000 images this is a non-issue, but it becomes
> a huge obstacle for a hundred-million images archive...
Not if you do it on a continuing, cyclic basis.
> B&W prints are long-lasting...that has been established.
The written word lasts much longer, and that's established, too. Digital
versus analog.
> I'd rather have an original to scan and re-scan as
> needed, than be stuck with a digital "original which
> may suddenly become corrupted or inaccessible...
Every scan you make is slightly worse than its predecessor.
> Digital imaging intersects my two skills: photography (which I've been
> practicing in one form or another for 30 years) and computers (I design
> large-scale databases for a living.) Believe me, I wish that the computer
> storage issue was as simple as you see it...
It is.
-- Anthony
Richard Waddington
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:936185371.3...@newscene.newscene.com...
>
>
>> I find it hard to believe that people do not see the obvious here: If you
>> have Wang 8-inch floppies with important information on them, you should
>> keep Wang 8-inch floppy drives around to read them.
>
> Until they break down due to entropy of course, and can't replace/repair
>them.
>
>
>
>>
>> But you can copy a digital image to a new medium with zero loss, so it
>> doesn't have to be.
>
> But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN transfer, or what?
>How do you decide it's time to make new files? Every 10 years? It all
>seems
>no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>
>
>>
>> > I'll take B&W prints, B&W slides, Kodachrmes or E-6 slides any time over
>> the
>> > most robust digital storage.
>>
>> We can compare my scans and your prints 200 years from now, and I daresay
>> you'll regret your decision.
>
> I'll be willing to compare my archivaly printed, and toned prints to
>your digital stuff in 500 years never mind 200.
>
> It's all [pointless anyway. I'll be dead then, and the baton is passed
>to my children/family/friends/employer (delete as appropriate). So long as
>my trannies will last, let's say 50 years (I'll be 81) that will do for me.
>
>David.
>
>
>
Me too David !
(I can remember when i got my first CD-Rom drive (650mb seemed to be
an incredible amount of storage space back then, But now it is quite a
small amount)
The computer industry moves onwards at an ever increasing pace, And
like you say above, In 5 or 10 years time my CD-Roms will be well
outdated, And when that happens nobody will make CD-Rom drives, And so
i will be forced to transfer all the information to another storage
medium (But that could take a very long time to do, Not to mention the
price !!!)
Richard Waddington
>Anthony:
>
>Can you tell me the diet that allows you to be able to live 200 years from
>now to do your comparing of digital vs. film longevity.
>
>Don't tell me, wait, let me geuss...
>
>Could it be "the archival diet"? ;-)
>
>Lewis (would love tobe around 200 years from now to test the archivability of
>digital vs. film, perhaps if I take half as many breaths I'll last twice as
>long ;-), Methusala) Lang
>
Good point !
Maybe i will try that ! (Would sure cut down on the free radicals !)
Fred Whitlock
>
> > Until they break down due to entropy of course, and
can't replace/repair
> > them.
>
Not only do I not consider digital storage media to be
archival, but the Library of Congress doesn't either. In
the audio world, DAT tapes (digital) need to be recopied
every 4 or 5 years. If they are not, then they will degrade
to the point of being unusable. The CD probably has a
longer life but nobody really knows how archival it really
is. It takes just one slipped bit to make an image
irretrievable.
>
> > But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN
transfer, or what?
> > How do you decide it's time to make new files?
>
> Whenever I see deterioration or want to move to new media.
I have an archive of about 450,000 very high resolution
transparencies in various formats. Can I get you to come
over and transfer them to something every so often when you
see some deterioration or want to change media? The 4X5
chromes require a minimum file size of around 250MB each to
get acceptable digital resolution (commercially acceptable,
that is.)
>
> > It all seems no more permanent, or safer, than analogue
storage to me.
>
> It isn't (since all digital media are actually analog
storage mechanisms,
> anyway). The advantage is that you can copy the images as
many times as
> necessary with _zero_ loss, and that the images will show
_zero_
> deterioration as long as they are readable at all. This
means that, in the
> end, digital wins.
Right, it isn't safer. It isn't archival. Digital wins as
long as "they are readable at all." According to the
Library of Congress (and me) analog wins. Digital is the
preferred method for submitting, transporting and using
photography in my area (commercial) but film is still the
best way to store it. It's the only practical way to store
large amounts of photographs given current technology.
That's why we shoot it on film, scan it, ship it on digital
media and then delete it from the hard drive. We can fill
up a 8GB hard drive in a couple of days with scans. The
film goes in the archive, the digital file is discarded.
>
> > I'll be willing to compare my archivaly printed, and
toned prints to
> > your digital stuff in 500 years never mind 200.
>
> Do you know of anything analog right now that is 500 years
old and has not
> deteriorated? I can point out digital things that have
been around for
> thousands of years and have not changed at all.
It isn't a matter of change. It's a matter of "as long as
they are readable at all." Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Anthony
news:7qle7h$4pm$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net...
> Not only do I not consider digital storage media to be
> archival, but the Library of Congress doesn't either.
You seem to be missing the point. In the digital realm, you don't need
media that last forever, because you can copy information to new media at
any time, and there is _zero_ loss. The whole idea of archival analog media
is based on the fact that you cannot copy analog information without loss,
and so every time you have to copy to new media, you lose something
(sometimes you lose a lot). Naturally, this encourages the use of media
that will last as long as possible without deterioration. However, in the
digital realm, you can copy a thousand times a day, and never lose anything,
so the lifespan of media is not terribly important, as long as it is long
enough to allow you to periodically copy to new media.
A thousand years from now, our digital information will still be intact and
unchanged; our digital images will look exactly as they do today. In
contrast, there will be nothing left of our analog images, no matter what
media we use.
> It takes just one slipped bit to make an image
> irretrievable.
This is completely incorrect. If you lose one bit, you lose... one bit.
That's 1/4096th of the total intensity of one primary color in one of twelve
million pixels or more. Not a great loss.
Furthermore, typically there are no lost bits at all. It is routine to copy
information many thousands of times in the digital realm with _zero_ bit
loss.
> I have an archive of about 450,000 very high resolution
> transparencies in various formats. Can I get you to come
> over and transfer them to something every so often when you
> see some deterioration or want to change media?
What does the job pay?
> The 4X5 chromes require a minimum file size of around 250MB each to
> get acceptable digital resolution (commercially acceptable,
> that is.)
So?
BTW, which commercial application do you have in mind that requires scans of
this size?
> Right, it isn't safer. It isn't archival.
It is safer because it is digital. Zero loss, unlimited lifetime.
> Digital wins as long as "they are readable at all."
Yes.
> According to the Library of Congress (and me) analog wins.
Wait and see. I've already moved beyond that.
> It isn't a matter of change. It's a matter of "as long as
> they are readable at all."
Very often it is a matter of understanding.
-- Anthony
Robert Alan Siegel
errors, but that takes more space so it is not used except in special
circumstances. So you are correct, the risk is not that a few bits will be
dropped but that the entire media or file will not be readable.
Another consideration is that most people are not disciplined enough to
perform regular maintenance. It is true that you can make an infinite
number of digital copies without loss of quality, but that does not mean
that more than a handful of people will actually copy archived digital media
every 5 or 10 years.
Also, people distribute prints, not digital files. Many of the owners of
digital inkjet prints will find that they are badly faded in a few years,
but they do not have the digital files and may well not have any way to get
them.
I have black & white prints taken 30 to 90 years ago that I found in my
parents files after death. These are not archival processed by any means;
many are routine drug store prints. OTOH, early Polaroids are browned
stained and useless, and most of the color is also so faded that it is
worthless. Old Kodachrome films are ok.
While few of us take great pictures like Ed Weston, children and
grandchildren can benefit from viewing pictures that give a sense of family
history. That is not likely unless the whole question of archival storage
receives more importance than it currently gets.
Fred Whitlock wrote in message <7qle7h$4pm$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
>
>>
>> > Until they break down due to entropy of course, and
>can't replace/repair
>> > them.
>>
>> They are no more prone to that than film.
>
>Not only do I not consider digital storage media to be
>archival, but the Library of Congress doesn't either. In
>the audio world, DAT tapes (digital) need to be recopied
>every 4 or 5 years. If they are not, then they will degrade
>to the point of being unusable. The CD probably has a
>longer life but nobody really knows how archival it really
>is. It takes just one slipped bit to make an image
>irretrievable.
>>
>> > But, do you wait for signs of degradation, and THEN
>transfer, or what?
>> > How do you decide it's time to make new files?
>>
>> Whenever I see deterioration or want to move to new media.
>
>I have an archive of about 450,000 very high resolution
>transparencies in various formats. Can I get you to come
>over and transfer them to something every so often when you
>see some deterioration or want to change media? The 4X5
>chromes require a minimum file size of around 250MB each to
>get acceptable digital resolution (commercially acceptable,
>that is.)
>
>>
>It isn't a matter of change. It's a matter of "as long as
Only me...
Richard Waddington <Dick...@arsole.com> wrote in message
news:37cebdc2...@news.dabsol.net...
In 5 or 10 years time my CD-Roms will be well
> outdated, And when that happens nobody will make CD-Rom drives, And so
> i will be forced to transfer all the information to another storage
> medium (But that could take a very long time to do, Not to mention the
> price !!!)
Precisely. Even if these figures are wrong, the fact remains that I
will be having to continually spend hundreds of hours changing formats.
Then there's the real problem - because digital has no apparent loss (but it
does have actual losses), one day, I'll copy an image, and it just won't
work anymore - bye bye image. Even if my slides or negatives fade slightly
in 30 years time (as if that's a big deal anyway), I can still print out any
problems if necessary. Once a digital file is corrupt, it's a major problem
to retrieve it, if you can at all.
David.
Only me...
> transparencies in various formats. Can I get you to come
> over and transfer them to something every so often when you
> see some deterioration or want to change media? The 4X5
> chromes require a minimum file size of around 250MB each to
> get acceptable digital resolution (commercially acceptable,
> that is.)
Anthony doesn't think about the practical things ;-) He just thinks
digital is great, because it's new, and he can use PhotoShop, and not have
to use a darkroom, and can mess about with his colours and contrast, but
none of the digital pundits will ever realise that it will never be better
than the real thing. It can only ever be as good, but no better, but it's
yet to be as good. If you scan a large format image, you're degrading it -
simple as that. Why should I scan my 5x4 trannies when I can print them?
There's loss enough in that, so why scan them and THEN print them. There
may be no loss in digital copying, but there's certainly a lot of loss when
transferring the analogue image to digital. Even the very, very, VERY best
scanners around can only just about equal the quality of a 5x4 transparency,
and then I have to add to that the digital printing methods around today,
which, no matter what anyone tries to tell me, are not as good as making an
enlargement with a damned good lens. However, I don't have access to the
very, very, VERY best scanners, and neither does Anthony, so why is he
willing to degrade his work I wonder? It's just fashionable at present, to
jump upon the digital bandwagon. There are reasons why digital is good, and
useful, but I doubt Anthony has any such reasons, other than he wants to.
Fair enough, but there's one thing he can't argue - scanning his images is
degrading the quality of them. So, even if digital storage is the best
thing ever, it will still be storing an inferior image.
Why should I trust a computer, when I can just put it in a box? If a
thief breaks into my house, he'll take me PC, and probably all my CDs too,
then if that was my main storage method, all my work is gone! I doubt he'll
take a box of old big o'l silly negative things though, it's just trash,
right?
David.
Only me...
> They are no more prone to that than film.
Film can't "break" in the sense I meant, as it has no moving parts. If
you take care of it, it will outlast you.
> Whenever I see deterioration or want to move to new media.
So, if you wait for degradation, you WILL be losing quality each
generation, but with digital storage, when things get too bad, they don't
just look bad, they will just no longer work - the file will be corrupt, and
it's too late then.
>
> > It all seems no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>The advantage is that you can copy the images as many times as
> necessary with _zero_ loss, and that the images will show _zero_
> deterioration as long as they are readable at all. This means that, in
the
> end, digital wins.
Until they become unreadable of course, and then, as you say, the file
just doesn't work any more. If they show no signs of degradation up until
that point, then there's a risk that one day, you will not be able to read a
file for no apparent reason. Sounds a bit too flakey to me.
> Do you know of anything analog right now that is 500 years old and has not
> deteriorated? I can point out digital things that have been around for
> thousands of years and have not changed at all.
Really? Go on then. (prepare for something really stupid everyone).
A selenium toned print will last for hundreds of years with no apparent
signs of fading if stored properly. Digital media has yet to prove itself,
even though you're no doubt going to try to convince us that some naturally
occurring phenomena are digital, or that an abacus is digital, or marks
indicating days scribed upon a cave wall by Neolithic men are digital ;-)
They aren't really though, are they. None of the things you're about to say
are truly digital, whether it be the previous examples, or nucleotide
sequencing, they aren't the same - they aren't synthetic. The fact is that
digital media DOES have losses - just not apparent losses, and one day, you
can't retrieve your data properly. Oops! Then what?
David.
Only me...
> > If you have a 1000 images this is a non-issue, but it becomes
> > a huge obstacle for a hundred-million images archive...
>
> Not if you do it on a continuing, cyclic basis.
This guy is just giving answers for the sake of arguing now. He knows
very well that doing such a thing will cost shit loads of money, where as
archival storage of negs and slides costs as much as it does to rent the
space, and air condition it. He's done this before at least twice that I
remember when a digital argument comes up. He will argue to the death, and
absolutely refuse to see a flaw in the digital argument. Even advocating
the hundreds of thousands it will cost to operate this continual back-up
process, that is totally unnecessary. I hope you don't get paid to advise
companies on such issues Anthony, because you'll just be wasting people's
money.
You give him a reason why it's not a good idea - a perfectly rational
one, and he'll wrack his brains to think of a counter argument, even one
that has no practical use. If it's TRUE, or POSSIBLE, then it will do for
Anthony. Such things as practicality and cost don't seem to enter into his
reasoning ;-)
>
> > B&W prints are long-lasting...that has been established.
>
> The written word lasts much longer, and that's established, too. Digital
> versus analog.
Written words are not digital Anthony, nor are they a visual
representation - what are you talking about? If you're going to create
analogies (no pun intended) then at least have them make some sense.
>
> Every scan you make is slightly worse than its predecessor.
First you tell us there's NO loss in digital, then you say that. You're
inconsistent. Besides, if scanning make things WORSE, then why should we
bother at all? I'll just keep the original as my main archival method
thanks, and then if I scan it at a loss, fine, at least I have the original.
But to rely upon the digital "image", is foolish in the extreme, as it's
just TOO volatile.
>
> > Digital imaging intersects my two skills: photography (which I've been
> > practicing in one form or another for 30 years) and computers (I design
> > large-scale databases for a living.) Believe me, I wish that the
computer
> > storage issue was as simple as you see it...
>
> It is.
You see. He'll argue to the death, even against someone who very
clearly knows more about data storage than he ever will ( last time this
argument came up you weren't a database designer, so I'll assume you're not
one now as well). "It is". What sort of answer is that? It isn't
Anthony. We've all given you reasons why it;s not - even if it's just the
cost of having to continually back-up huge databases. This is accepted
practice for digital data, but with a thing like a photograph, that's not
digital to start with, why complicate it? Just put the f**king thing in a
box! If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
David.
SpooRL
>unchanged; our digital images will look exactly as they do today.
>in the
>digital realm, you can copy a thousand times a day, and never lose >anything,
>so the lifespan of media is not terribly important
It is safe to conclude that you will be dead for the majority of the upcoming
1000 years. Who's going to carry on this labor of love with your work for all
that time?
Spoo
Nick
many a good thread, and many an arguement bordering on 'road rage'.
It seems that the arguement of digital vs film evokes many a passionate and
emotional discourse. but some thoughts to consider are 'active' vs 'passive'
archiving and, digital file formats changing in the future.
the idea of 'active' vs 'passive' archiving has been covered extensively in this
ng. 'Passive' in the context of providing a controlled environment and
essentially having the images last for an 'indefinite' period (technical
arguments not withstanding), and 'active' requiring 'hands on' management and
rewritting of data to the storage media to preclude losses etc.
But a concept that I haven't seen put forth is the one that considers the
concept of file storage format changes with improvements in future software.
Today's tiff and jpg (and any other file format you wish), may very well be
replaced by 'superior' types in the future. What happens when the day arrives
that the software of the time can no longer recognize or manipulate the older
file formats? Conversion routines? Implies some loss would it not? Would this
not represent a 'new generation' of the image?
Remember now, we're are talking archiving, and that implies a significant amount
of time. Not next decade, but rather decades if not centuries. This is a
dilema that many organizations are wrestling with, i.e., the Archivist of the
United States.
So, I look forward to some intelligent discourse, some valid argurments, and
(hoepfully not) several flames...
Nick
Stephen Furley
>you don't need media that last forever, because you can
>copy information to new media at any time, and there is
>_zero_ loss. The whole idea of archival analog media is
>based on the fact that you cannot copy analog information
>without loss, and so every time you have to copy to new
>media, you lose something (sometimes you lose a lot).
>Naturally, this encourages the use of media that will last
>never lose anything, so the lifespan of media is not
>you to periodically copy to new media.
>A thousand years from now, our digital information will
>still be intact and unchanged; our digital images will
>look exactly as they do today. In contrast, there will be
>nothing left of our analog images, no matter what media we
>use.
The life of the media does matter. Digital images (or any
other data, it's all the same (just bits) if it's digital)
don't exist just floating about in the air, they only exist
when stored on some sort of digital media, just as a
photograph only exists when it is stored on a sheet of
film, or paper, or glass plate, or whatever. Therefore,if
you use short-life media you have to copy frequently. Who
is going to do this copying, Who is going to pay them to do
it? When are they going to do it? How do they going to know
when to do it? What media are they going to copy onto? How
do they know that they have chosen the right media? These
are exactly the same problems which analogue archives face
when they can only preserve material by copying to new
media. The best example I can think of is video tape. A
vast quantity of material was stored on 2" quad tape, some
of it was copied to 1" 'C' format, but that is also now
obsolete, some was copied to 1" 'B' format, or MII, or some
other obscure format which became obsolete almost as soon
as the copy was made, so the copying now has to be done all
over again, some has not been copied at all, and the 2"
oriqinals are decaying fast, there ane not enough machines,
or staff or time available to copy everything before it's
too late. What should we try to preserve? Who decides?
Using what criteria?
Systems which rely on frequent copying, even if it
is "lossless", of vast amounts of material at frequent
intervals (every few years) cause major problems.
Film archives do not want "films" that they can preserve
forever by lossless copying every few years, they want
stable materials materials which they can store for long
periods, under reasonable conditions without serious decay.
The other problem is that, if it is important, and needs to
be copied, then it probably won't be. That's the way it
tends to happen.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
JP
There are some important points being missed in Anthony's defense of digital
vs. traditional archives.
1. Yes, it may be possible to store an entire archive of hundreds of
thousands of film and prints digitally, but it is much more expensive to do
this than to store them as film and prints. Check out the prices on
enterprise-class tape backup systems of the type that can back up millions
of megabytes of data without error on a daily basis. Backups have to be
redundant and cross-checked for accuracy, requiring a hell of a lot of
processing power, multiple banks of high-speed robotically loaded tape
drives, and a large staff to keep it going. Compare this to a simple
climate-controlled storage vault. No contest which is cheaper.
2. Recordable CD-ROM's are dye-based. The archival properties of the dye
contained within the plastic are unknown and highly suspect. Even normal
aluminum based CD-ROM's are not considered archival, as the aluminum can
oxidize over time.
3. If you convert all your film and prints to digital today, you miss out
on any technological advances in picture resolution and storage algoritms.
Current systems simply do not store all of the data contained on a negative.
Data that can not be resolved by the film scanner is lost and can never be
retreived.
4. While it is technically possible to keep hardware around that can read
outdated media, the cost of keeping this hardware running is exorbitant once
the hardware becomes obsolete and knowledge of its workings has passed on
with the original designers. Converting from one system to another can
introduce error, and the only way to guard against this error is to check
every file as it is converted. Not cost efficient. And, don't forget that
magnetic tape can stick together, is affected by heat and humidity, and must
be tensioned every few months. Again, not cost efficient.
5. Finally, while photography has only been around since the mid-1800's,
painting and engraving have been around much longer than that and there are
many fine examples of these art forms that have existed for 500 years or
more. In addition, many, many photographs from the earliest days of
photography still exist and are in good shape due to proper storage.
In closing, if this logic were followed to its extreme, all museums could be
closed down and all their contents could be transferred to digital media.
If you think seeing the Mona Lisa only on your computer screen is OK, then
perhaps this route appeals to you.
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lQhz3.9857$k4.2...@news4.giganews.com...
> eMeL <ab...@nospam.gov> wrote in message
> news:A3bz3.117$uf3.1...@newsie.cais.net...
>
> > Easier said than done...
>
> Do whatever you think is best. Time will tell.
>
> > Copying is an option for very few images, but is absolutely
> > not feasible for large data repositories.
>
> Sure it is. A lot of repositories do it every night, with backups.
>
> > If you have a 1000 images this is a non-issue, but it becomes
> > a huge obstacle for a hundred-million images archive...
>
> Not if you do it on a continuing, cyclic basis.
>
> > B&W prints are long-lasting...that has been established.
>
> The written word lasts much longer, and that's established, too. Digital
> versus analog.
>
> > I'd rather have an original to scan and re-scan as
> > needed, than be stuck with a digital "original which
> > may suddenly become corrupted or inaccessible...
>
> Every scan you make is slightly worse than its predecessor.
>
> > Digital imaging intersects my two skills: photography (which I've been
> > practicing in one form or another for 30 years) and computers (I design
> > large-scale databases for a living.) Believe me, I wish that the
computer
> > storage issue was as simple as you see it...
>
> It is.
>
> -- Anthony
>
Anthony
news:7qlv6s$qq1$4...@gxsn.com...
> Anthony doesn't think about the practical things ;-)
Anthony is actually exceedingly pragmatic.
> He just thinks digital is great ...
True.
> ... because it's new ...
No, I think it's great because it is superior.
> ... and he can use PhotoShop, and not have to use a darkroom, and
> can mess about with his colours and contrast ...
Absolutely.
> ... but none of the digital pundits will ever realise that it
> will never be better than the real thing.
Digital is no less the "real thing" than an image captured on film.
> It can only ever be as good, but no better, but it's
> yet to be as good.
Just like film. So there are similarities.
> If you scan a large format image, you're degrading it -> simple
> as that.
That depends on how well it is scanned, and what information you require
from the scan.
> Why should I scan my 5x4 trannies when I can print them?
I don't know. Why?
I don't print my film images; I just scan them.
> There may be no loss in digital copying, but there's certainly
> a lot of loss when transferring the analogue image to digital.
Yes, and that's why digital has an advantage: the analog conversion is done
only once. If you remain in the analog domain, you do it over, and over,
and over, and lose something each time.
> However, I don't have access to the very, very, VERY best
> scanners, and neither does Anthony, so why is he willing to
> degrade his work I wonder?
I require a finite amount of quality in my scans, and any scan that provides
that is good enough. Thereafter, I need not worry about further
degradation. This is why I prefer the digital realm.
> It's just fashionable at present, to jump upon the digital
> bandwagon.
I think it will last a lot longer than any passing fashion.
> There are reasons why digital is good, and useful, but I doubt
> Anthony has any such reasons, other than he wants to.
I've given several reasons above. More than you have, actually.
> Fair enough, but there's one thing he can't argue - scanning
> his images is degrading the quality of them.
In absolute terms, yes--in the same way that your film images are degrading
as we speak. But the key is to have sufficient quality, not infinite
quality.
> So, even if digital storage is the best
> thing ever, it will still be storing an inferior image.
Inferior to what?
> I doubt he'll take a box of old big o'l silly negative things
> though, it's just trash, right?
It depends on who took the pictures.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> So, if you wait for degradation, you WILL be losing quality each
> generation ...
Not if I keep multiple copies.
> ... but with digital storage, when things get too bad, they don't
> just look bad, they will just no longer work - the file will be corrupt,
and
> it's too late then.
This is incorrect.
> Until they become unreadable of course, and then, as you say, the file
> just doesn't work any more.
I didn't say that. I think you did.
> If they show no signs of degradation up until
> that point, then there's a risk that one day, you will not be able to read
a
> file for no apparent reason. Sounds a bit too flakey to me.
Perhaps you haven't worked that much with information theory. There is no
flakiness to it.
> Really? Go on then.
The Torah. It consists of digital information, and copies existing today
are identical to copies that are centuries old. There has been no loss.
This is true for all written texts, if they are carefully copied. It is the
nature of digital information.
> ... (prepare for something really stupid everyone) ...
No preparation was required.
> Digital media has yet to prove itself,
> even though you're no doubt going to try to convince us that some
naturally
> occurring phenomena are digital, or that an abacus is digital, or marks
> indicating days scribed upon a cave wall by Neolithic men are digital ;-)
True for all of these.
> They aren't really though, are they.
Uh, well, actually, yes they are. They are just as digital as a CD-ROM.
I'm surprised that you would think otherwise, as it is obvious to me.
> None of the things you're about to say are truly digital,
> whether it be the previous examples, or nucleotide sequencing, they
> aren't the same - they aren't synthetic.
They are all digital, and an abacus or marks scratched on the wall of a cave
are indeed synthetic.
> The fact is that digital media DOES have losses ...
That's because digital media are actually analog media. However, digital
information itself can be preserved without loss.
> ... just not apparent losses, and one day, you can't retrieve your
> data properly.
This is incorrect.
> Oops! Then what?
You retrieve the undamaged portion, as you would in any analog system.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7qltv4$m...@news-central.tiac.net...
> There are ways to record digital information so that it is very tolerant
of
> errors, but that takes more space so it is not used except in special
> circumstances. So you are correct, the risk is not that a few
> bits will be dropped but that the entire media or file will not be
readable.
Read your own statements again. Loss of a few bits is not loss of an entire
file, and you don't need elaborate error correction to prevent a loss of a
few bits from affecting the rest of the data. Do you want me to explain
exactly why this is so? It's all information theory.
> Also, people distribute prints, not digital files.
Speak for yourself. I deal with digital files, not prints.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:19990902100904...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> Who's going to carry on this labor of love with your work for all
> that time?
Anyone who wants to preserve it.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> This guy is just giving answers for the sake of arguing now.
You don't have any effective counterarguments, do you? The above is what
people often say when they run out.
> He will argue to the death, and absolutely refuse to see a
> flaw in the digital argument.
There aren't any flaws that I can see, and nobody has been able to show me
any. That's why digital will gradually take over from film.
> I hope you don't get paid to advise companies on such issues
> Anthony, because you'll just be wasting people's money.
That's not what they told me.
> You give him a reason why it's not a good idea - a perfectly rational
> one, and he'll wrack his brains to think of a counter argument, even one
> that has no practical use.
I suggest you try the same thing--it's good exercise. Instead of spending
long posts attacking me personally, try to come up with counterarguments
that stand on their own merit. It would be a refreshing change, from my
standpoint, and you might enjoy it.
> Written words are not digital Anthony ...
This is incorrect. Written text is a digital representation, not analog. A
painting is an analog representation.
> ... nor are they a visual representation - what are you talking
> about?
If you don't know what I am talking about, why did you assert that written
words are not digital? It's all information theory.
> If you're going to create analogies (no pun intended) then at
> least have them make some sense.
They do make sense, if you are familiar with information theory.
> First you tell us there's NO loss in digital, then you say that. You're
> inconsistent.
Not at all. Each scan damages the film to some extent, so that the next
scan will not contain as much useful information as the preceding scan.
This happens in the analog realm, not the digital realm.
> Besides, if scanning make things WORSE, then why should we
> bother at all?
Because once you've done it, you never have to do it again, and so no
further degradation will occur.
> I'll just keep the original as my main archival method
> thanks, and then if I scan it at a loss, fine, at least I have the
original.
But the original is continuously deteriorating, especially when you scan it,
project it, copy it, or print it. Just looking at it damages it to some
extent.
> But to rely upon the digital "image", is foolish in the extreme, as it's
> just TOO volatile.
The reality is quite the opposite. See above.
> You see. He'll argue to the death, even against someone who very
> clearly knows more about data storage than he ever will ...
How do you know how much anyone knows about anything here, based only on
their posts here?
> ... last time this argument came up you weren't a database
> designer, so I'll assume you're not one now as well.
That's correct, but it is not relevant here.
> "It is". What sort of answer is that?
A simple correction.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37CEA43A...@erols.com...
> What happens when the day arrives that the software of the time can
> no longer recognize or manipulate the older file formats?
That will not occur, because all existing data will be in the old formats,
and so all new software will have to provide for them. This has been the
case in the past, and it will continue to be the case in the future.
> Conversion routines? Implies some loss would it not? Would this
> not represent a 'new generation' of the image?
There is no loss when making a copy in the digital realm. Conversions do
not cause data to be lost if the transformations are homeomorphic. That is,
if every message m has one and only one corresponding message y, there is no
loss. This is true for many conversions and file formats, particularly the
simplest ones.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> In closing, if this logic were followed to its extreme, all museums could
be
> closed down and all their contents could be transferred to digital media.
> If you think seeing the Mona Lisa only on your computer screen is OK, then
> perhaps this route appeals to you.
Some museums are doing this right now. It's the only way to prevent further
deterioration in existing works of art.
-- Anthony
Only me...
>
> No, I think it's great because it is superior.
How is it superior? Please explain?
> I don't print my film images; I just scan them.
Then how do you look at them? On a monitor? Ooohhh!! That must be
good ;-) You don't print at all? Then no wonder you think digital is
great, for God's sake.
> I require a finite amount of quality in my scans, and any scan that
provides
> that is good enough. Thereafter, I need not worry about further
> degradation. This is why I prefer the digital realm.
Well, I require the absolute pinnacle of sharpness and fidelity. We
have
differing requirements. Digital is only good if you are prepared to accept
that you lose quality. You are, I'm not. Simple as that.
>
> > It's just fashionable at present, to jump upon the digital
> > bandwagon.
>
> I think it will last a lot longer than any passing fashion.
Passing fashion? Such as silver halide? Nearly 200 years and still
passing :-)
>
> > There are reasons why digital is good, and useful, but I doubt
> > Anthony has any such reasons, other than he wants to.
>
> I've given several reasons above. More than you have, actually.
None that convince me.
>
> > Fair enough, but there's one thing he can't argue - scanning
> > his images is degrading the quality of them.
>
> In absolute terms, yes--in the same way that your film images are
degrading
> as we speak. But the key is to have sufficient quality, not infinite
> quality.
But I'll not notice the degradation in my life time, because I store my
film properly. I'll be dead long since when my images are appreciably faded.
>
> > So, even if digital storage is the best
> > thing ever, it will still be storing an inferior image.
>
> Inferior to what?
Inferior to the original silver image, what else?
>
> > I doubt he'll take a box of old big o'l silly negative things
> > though, it's just trash, right?
>
> It depends on who took the pictures.
And how would he know that? Again, you're being picky.
David.
>
> -- Anthony
>
>
Only me...
> The Torah. It consists of digital information, and copies existing today
> are identical to copies that are centuries old. There has been no loss.
> This is true for all written texts, if they are carefully copied. It is
the
> nature of digital information.
Anthony. Writing is not digital, you poor, disillusioned little man.
It's essentially drawing shapes. How is that digital? Digital means two
states - on or off, 1 or 0. Writing is just making marks upon a page -
drawing. I can copy my laundry list, and it will not change, but that
doesn't make it digital.
You're just too stupid to converse with. I think I'll ignore you
instead.
David.
Only me...
> Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7qlv70$qq1$6...@gxsn.com...
>
> > This guy is just giving answers for the sake of arguing now.
>
> You don't have any effective counterarguments, do you? The above is what
> people often say when they run out.
I do, but you don't pay any attention to them, so why bother. You love
all things digital, and no amount of common sense will prevail. You think
continually paying out to constantly be copying data is preferable to proper
archival storage, even for image libraries that are so huge, that they would
be continually copying. Millions of images to continually copy, and
continually paying people to copy them. That makes more sense to you than
putting slides in a box, and switching the light out? Then more fool you.
You can not see any negative aspect of digital storage. Even when someone
says something irrefutable, you just conveniently ignore that, and move onto
something else. No one can continually disagree with everything everybody
says... except you. You can, and do. We've all given good arguments for
not storing things digitally, and a lot of them are true, but you just move
onto something else at that stage, furthering the argument to your ends.
This is not debate, this is school yard stuff. There's no fun in taking
part in any thread you're involved with Anthony. There's no give and take;
thrust and parry - all the things that make debating fun is lost whenever
you're here. You're here for one reason only - to win at all costs. What
are you winning though I wonder. Not respect, certainly.
This is where we part company. This is boring now.
David.
Matthew Hunt
Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The Torah. It consists of digital information, and copies existing today
> > are identical to copies that are centuries old. There has been no loss.
> > This is true for all written texts, if they are carefully copied. It is
> the
> > nature of digital information.
>
> Anthony. Writing is not digital, you poor, disillusioned little man.
> It's essentially drawing shapes. How is that digital? Digital means two
> states - on or off, 1 or 0. Writing is just making marks upon a page -
> drawing. I can copy my laundry list, and it will not change, but that
> doesn't make it digital.
Hi. Can I be disillusioned and little, too?
You're thinking of "binary", which refers to exactly two states. The
root of "digital" is "digits", which we can easily generalize to a finite
set of symbols, instead of just 0-9. For example, the hexadecimal digits
are 0-9A-F, and we could instead use A-Z as digits of a base-26 system,
and so forth.
So, then, the Torah is essentially the same as any other digital work,
with there being as many digits as there are symbols in the Hebrew
alphabet, punctuation, and so on. When it is transcribed, all that matters
is that the symbols appear in exactly the same order as they did in the
original. If the shape of an aleph is slightly different, it doesn't
matter, as long as it's still recognizable as an aleph.
I think that Anthony is right, and that the transcription of the Torah
is well-described as a digital process.
SpooRL
>all things digital, and no amount of common sense will prevail.
I love all things digital too, almost as much as I love film images. I have a
35mm film scanner, and with some patient and kind mentoring by this ng's own
Acer Victoria, I am getting better at operating it. I have a new
playground--digital. I can post images on a site and invite others to come look
at my stuff, which I will do. I can e-mail pictures. I would imagine that the
marketing possibilities are broad for a shrewd technician. But for me, it's
fun. I'm glad I'm not ruining the joy of it for myself by debating whether
digital prints and archival storage methods are superior to conventional prints
and storing the film. I don't think that they are. But do as you please.
I remember when digital sound recording became mainstream. All of a sudden we
were pulling subtleties from old analogue master tapes which hitherto were not
thought to be retrievable, through digital re-mastering. Good thing they had
been kept around. But imagine that, working things together. Beats the hell out
of this asinine insistence that the two media be compared. Digital vs. analogue
makes dull sport.
Richard
Spoo
Richard Waddington
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:kQhz3.9856$k4.2...@news4.giganews.com...
>
>
>> They are no more prone to that than film.
>
> Film can't "break" in the sense I meant, as it has no moving parts. If
>you take care of it, it will outlast you.
>
>
>
>> Whenever I see deterioration or want to move to new media.
>
> So, if you wait for degradation, you WILL be losing quality each
>generation, but with digital storage, when things get too bad, they don't
>just look bad, they will just no longer work - the file will be corrupt, and
>it's too late then.
>
>
>>
>> > It all seems no more permanent, or safer, than analogue storage to me.
>>The advantage is that you can copy the images as many times as
>> necessary with _zero_ loss, and that the images will show _zero_
>> deterioration as long as they are readable at all. This means that, in
>the
>> end, digital wins.
>
> Until they become unreadable of course, and then, as you say, the file
>just doesn't work any more. If they show no signs of degradation up until
>that point, then there's a risk that one day, you will not be able to read a
>file for no apparent reason. Sounds a bit too flakey to me.
>
>
>
>> Do you know of anything analog right now that is 500 years old and has not
>> deteriorated? I can point out digital things that have been around for
>> thousands of years and have not changed at all.
>
> Really? Go on then. (prepare for something really stupid everyone).
>A selenium toned print will last for hundreds of years with no apparent
>signs of fading if stored properly. Digital media has yet to prove itself,
>even though you're no doubt going to try to convince us that some naturally
>occurring phenomena are digital, or that an abacus is digital, or marks
>indicating days scribed upon a cave wall by Neolithic men are digital ;-)
>They aren't really though, are they. None of the things you're about to say
>are truly digital, whether it be the previous examples, or nucleotide
>sequencing, they aren't the same - they aren't synthetic. The fact is that
>digital media DOES have losses - just not apparent losses, and one day, you
>can't retrieve your data properly. Oops! Then what?
>
>David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I too would be very interested in knowing what in the natural world is
thousands of years old and is digital !
Anthony
news:7qmo94$7us$5...@gxsn.com...
> How is it superior? Please explain?
I've spent about a dozen posts explaining exactly that. Are you saying that
you did not read them?
> Then how do you look at them? On a monitor?
Yes.
> Ooohhh!! That must be good ;-)
It looks a lot better than a print--much closer to a projected slide.
> You don't print at all?
No. I have no need for prints when I have negatives or image files, and if
I give or sell photographs to others, I send them the image file, not a
print.
> Then no wonder you think digital is great, for God's sake.
That's part of the reason, yes.
> Well, I require the absolute pinnacle of sharpness and fidelity.
Then you will spent most of your life in a futile search for the
unattainable. I prefer to spend that same time taking photographs.
> We have differing requirements.
So it seems.
> Digital is only good if you are prepared to accept that you
> lose quality.
Digital causes no loss in quality.
> You are, I'm not. Simple as that.
I think not. You show a strong emotional attachment to film.
> Passing fashion? Such as silver halide? Nearly 200 years and still
> passing :-)
Silver halide is not used in the digital realm. I'm not sure why you
mention it.
> None that convince me.
You do not wish to be convinced.
> But I'll not notice the degradation in my life time, because
> I store my film properly. I'll be dead long since when my images
> are appreciably faded.
If they are digital, they will never fade at all.
> Inferior to the original silver image, what else?
The original image is not always silver.
> And how would he know that?
He might not.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:7qmqu3$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu...
> You're thinking of "binary", which refers to exactly two states. The
> root of "digital" is "digits", which we can easily generalize to a finite
> set of symbols, instead of just 0-9. For example, the hexadecimal digits
> are 0-9A-F, and we could instead use A-Z as digits of a base-26 system,
> and so forth.
Exactly.
> So, then, the Torah is essentially the same as any other digital work,
> with there being as many digits as there are symbols in the Hebrew
> alphabet, punctuation, and so on. When it is transcribed, all that
matters
> is that the symbols appear in exactly the same order as they did in the
> original. If the shape of an aleph is slightly different, it doesn't
> matter, as long as it's still recognizable as an aleph.
Precisely.
I am persistent in my explanations because I know that many will understand
the principles involved with sufficient illustration, and I know from the
posts of people such as yourself that many people lurking (or posting) here
already understand the fundamental difference between digital and analog
representations. Unfortunately, those who do not understand generally fail
to see the intrinsic advantages of digital technology in real-world
implementations.
> I think that Anthony is right, and that the transcription of
> the Torah is well-described as a digital process.
I agree (naturally!).
-- Anthony
Anthony
> I do, but you don't pay any attention to them, so why bother.
You have withheld them thus far, insofar as I can see. Care to share a few?
> You love all things digital ...
I like things that work well better than I like things that work poorly. I
therefore prefer digital technology to analog technology, all else being
equal.
> ... and no amount of common sense will prevail.
Common sense is a subjective concept.
> You think continually paying out to constantly be copying data
> is preferable to proper archival storage, even for image libraries
> that are so huge, that they would be continually copying.
The problem you describe is a problem of the analog realm, not of the
digital realm. And things will improve in time.
> That makes more sense to you than putting slides in a box,
> and switching the light out?
Yes, if it is important that the images be permanently preserved.
> Then more fool you.
I don't understand.
> You can not see any negative aspect of digital storage.
The negative aspects I have seen mentioned here are all linked to analog
technology, not digital technology.
> Even when someone says something irrefutable, you just
> conveniently ignore that, and move onto something else.
The irrefutable assertions I have seen here have not been relevant to the
digital domain.
> No one can continually disagree with everything everybody
> says... except you.
I just agreed with someone in another post.
> We've all given good arguments for not storing things digitally,
> and a lot of them are true ...
So you are saying that some of the arguments were invalid or false? I see.
> This is not debate, this is school yard stuff.
You're entitled to your opinion. You've certainly expressed it at length
here.
> There's no fun in taking part in any thread you're
> involved with Anthony.
Why do you keep posting to me, then?
> There's no give and take; thrust and parry - all the things
> that make debating fun is lost whenever you're here.
Above all, I refuse to agree with others simply because they say that I
should.
> You're here for one reason only - to win at all costs.
I'm here to educate. However, if winning were indeed my objective, I assure
you that I could do so at very minimal cost in this discussion.
> What are you winning though I wonder. Not respect, certainly.
I'm enlightening. And I daresay you might be suprised about the respect
aspect.
> This is where we part company. This is boring now.
You said that in a previous post, if I remember correctly--and yet here you
are.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Writing is not digital, you poor, disillusioned little man.
Writing is entirely digital. That is why Shakespeare's works survive, even
though the paper they were first printed on does not. In contrast, the Mona
Lisa (an analog representation) is in very bad shape, and there is no way to
restore it or arrest its deterioration.
> It's essentially drawing shapes. How is that digital?
Digital is the symbolic representation of information. Analog is the
representation through direct physical models. Writing is a symbolic
representation of language; therefore, it is digital. Painting is a model
of real-life images in the form of colored pigments on canvas; it is
therefore an analog representation. Does this help?
> Digital means two states - on or off, 1 or 0.
No. Digital has nothing to do with this.
> Writing is just making marks upon a page - drawing.
No, see above.
> I can copy my laundry list, and it will not change, but that
> doesn't make it digital.
If it were not digital, it would be impossible to copy it without changing
it.
Another example: an abacus is a digital device that represents numbers
symbolically. A slide rule is an analog device that represents numbers as
physical lengths on a stick. Do you see the difference?
> You're just too stupid to converse with.
And yet, there you are.
> I think I'll ignore you instead.
I don't think you can resist responding to me.
-- Anthony
Only me...
> Hi. Can I be disillusioned and little, too?
>
> You're thinking of "binary", which refers to exactly two states. The
> root of "digital" is "digits", which we can easily generalize to a finite
> set of symbols, instead of just 0-9. For example, the hexadecimal digits
> are 0-9A-F, and we could instead use A-Z as digits of a base-26 system,
> and so forth.
Digital in the sense that Anthony is rambling about, is digital meaning
the opposite of analogue, with respect to recording and storage.
Besides, you can absolutely not compare the copying of a jpeg file, to
the copying of someone's telephone number with a pencil. By your definition,
everything is digital then, if it can be copied. What does it matter if
what's being copied is a letter or a rendition of a tree? What about
hieroglyphics? You can copy them too, but they're pictures. So all copying
of anything visually is digital? LOL... Oh dear... how far can you slit a
hair, or a thread on this thread ;-)
>
> So, then, the Torah is essentially the same as any other digital work,
> with there being as many digits as there are symbols in the Hebrew
> alphabet, punctuation, and so on.
But if you wish to carry this silly argument on further, then YES, it
can be copied, but they will NOT be the same as Anthony suggests. The
information within will be, but the copy will look different. I could copy
a Monet painting, and it would be obvious that it was a copy of a Monet
painting, but it wouldn't be the SAME as a Monet painting. So in this way,
these ridiculous digital analogies are not really relevant.
>When it is transcribed, all that matters
> is that the symbols appear in exactly the same order as they did in the
> original. If the shape of an aleph is slightly different, it doesn't
> matter, as long as it's still recognizable as an aleph.
A digital file, a proper one, on a computer, when copied, will be the
same (so far as we're concerned for this argument), but if I copied the
torah, my copy, whilst containing the same "digits", will look very
different
from the one I copied. It's NOT digital, it's analogue, in the same way
that a computer program stored on magnetic tape is actually analogue. It
can not be copied from tape to tape indefinitely without loss, because the
medium it's contained within is not digital - the information is produced by
AC passing through a coil: Analogue. Writing numbers upon a page,
although they are numbers, is also an analogue process.
>
> I think that Anthony is right, and that the transcription of the Torah
> is well-described as a digital process.
Well I don't, and if you think about it, you'll see why. The term
digital is far too loosely applied these days. Digital as in "digital
clock" is not the same as the digital as in "digital storage". A digital
clock can still utilise an analogue device to drive it. Displaying it's
information digitally does not make it a digital device in the same sense as
a computer, which unless I'm mistaken, was what this was about in the first
place, before Anthony muddied the waters to serve his own ends as usual.
This thread is just pointless now. It doesn't even have anything to do
with photography anymore, which is usually what happens when an idiot shows
up.
David.
Anthony
> Digital in the sense that Anthony is rambling about, is
> digital meaning the opposite of analogue, with respect to
> recording and storage.
Digital and analog are not opposites.
> Besides, you can absolutely not compare the copying of a
> jpeg file, to the copying of someone's telephone number
> with a pencil.
Why not? They are exactly the same thing.
> By your definition, everything is digital then, if it
> can be copied.
If it depends on symbols rather than physical models, it is digital.
> What does it matter if what's being copied is a letter
> or a rendition of a tree?
Quite a bit. One is digital, and the other is analog.
> What about hieroglyphics? You can copy them too, but
> they're pictures.
They are digital. They are symbols for something else, rather than physical
models of something else.
> So all copying of anything visually is digital?
No, only copying of visual information represented digitally.
> LOL... Oh dear... how far can you slit a hair, or
> a thread on this thread ;-)
You seem to have a poor understanding of the difference between digital and
analog, and that may be why the discussion appears not to make sense to you.
> But if you wish to carry this silly argument on further, then
> YES, it can be copied, but they will NOT be the same as Anthony
> suggests. The information within will be, but the copy will
> look different.
The information is what matters, not the appearance of its representation,
so for all practical purposes, the copy is error-free.
> I could copy a Monet painting, and it would be obvious that it
> was a copy of a Monet painting, but it wouldn't be the SAME as
> a Monet painting.
But that is in the analog realm.
> So in this way, these ridiculous digital analogies are
> not really relevant.
They are more than relevant: they illustrate some of the most important
building blocks of information theory.
> A digital file, a proper one, on a computer, when copied, will be the
> same (so far as we're concerned for this argument), but if I copied the
> torah, my copy, whilst containing the same "digits", will look very
> different from the one I copied.
But the text is the same, which was exactly the point.
> It's NOT digital, it's analogue ...
The text is digital. That's why its appearance isn't important.
> ... in the same way that a computer program stored on magnetic
> tape is actually analogue.
The stored signals are analog, but the information contained on the tape is
digital. Digital information is independent of any physical medium, whereas
analog information is not.
> It can not be copied from tape to tape indefinitely without
> loss, because the medium it's contained within is not digital ...
The signals cannot be copied directly without loss--however, this isn't
neceesary, anyway. Instead, the signals are read, the symbols they
represent are determined, and then a completely new set of fresh signals is
generated to represent those symbols. As a result, no deterioration in the
information contained on the tape occurs from one copy to another.
> ... the information is produced by AC passing through a coil:
> Analogue. Writing numbers upon a page, although they are numbers,
> is also an analogue process.
Please try to keep this in mind when you cite the impermanence of storage
media as in argument against _digital_ representation.
> Well I don't, and if you think about it, you'll see why.
I could suggest the same to you.
> The term digital is far too loosely applied these days.
Perhaps that is why you seem to be confused as to its meaning.
> Digital as in "digital clock" is not the same as the digital
> as in "digital storage".
Actually, it is.
> A digital clock can still utilise an analogue device
> to drive it.
But it represents time symbolically, instead of with a physical model.
That's why it is digital.
> This thread is just pointless now. It doesn't even have
> anything to do with photography anymore, which is usually what
> happens when an idiot shows up.
You can always just ignore the thread.
-- Anthony
Nick Hadlow
<SNIP>
>
> Written words are not digital Anthony, nor are they a visual
>representation - what are you talking about? If you're going to create
>analogies (no pun intended) then at least have them make some sense.
brushtrokes, typewriter imprints, ASCII files. EXACTLY the same
principle as 'digital'. The point is that the content is media
independent.
(and in some cases written language is, in a limited sense, a visual
representation)
<SNIP THE REST>
What has surprised me in this thread is the reaction of those who cannot
or do not wish to understand the point that abstracting any information
- an image, a poem, a piece of music - to an encoded format is bound to
make it more likely to survive (if you want it to) since the copy
process gives infinitesimal chances of degradation. My tape or CD might
break, but so might my transparency. But there's only ever one original
transparency and the quality of that degrades in analogue with each copy
generation.
The issues are surely more to do with absolute quality of the image when
stored in a digital format and the costs of storage and storage refresh.
I think it is highly likely that digital will, for almost all practical
purposes, become the winner within a few decades at most.
--
Nick Hadlow, UK
Matthew Hunt
Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So all copying of anything visually is digital?
>
> No, only copying of visual information represented digitally.
Exactly. The fellow seems to be confusing the information content
of a signal with its representation.
> The information is what matters, not the appearance of its representation,
> so for all practical purposes, the copy is error-free.
Right. If copying the Torah is a non-digital operation, because the
new representaion doesn't look just like the old one (even though the
information content is identical), then copying a word processor file
from hard disk to floppy is also non-digital, because the physical
representation of the symbols (bits) is different.
SpooRL
>> they're pictures.
>They are digital. They are symbols for something else, rather than >physical
>models of something else.
Without skipping over to Orwell, I think that everyone agrees that 2+2=4. That
is digital. 2+2=4. Anyone who understands Arabic numerals and an ounce of
arithmetic will get it. You can e-mail it, spray-paint it on a tram, or scratch
it into a turd with a stick. 2+2=4. Never changes. Copy it till hell freezes
over. Digital.
But try this: Joyce writes "...riverrun, past Eve and Adam's..." Now, what does
that mean? do we all agree that it means one thing? It seems to me that there
is a dimension of language, written or spoken, that exceeds or defies its
literal, digital aspect. You can program a computer to read language. Plug in
these words, and ask What is being stated here? and the computer will say,
"riverrun, Past Eve and Adam's." But ask a thousand people what it is
communicating, and you might get one thousand highly divergent replies. This
doesn't mean that people are stupid or inconsistent, it means that the computer
is stupid, because it has no capacity to draw a deeper cultural or artistic
nuance from the words. It is stuck in the shallow literal dimension of the
digits. No, language is not merely digital. Its capacity to carry meaning
exceeds its digital or literal configuration.
Spoo
Richard Waddington
<davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Anthony <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:oIzz3.11802$k4.2...@news4.giganews.com...
>
>
>> The Torah. It consists of digital information, and copies existing today
>> are identical to copies that are centuries old. There has been no loss.
>> This is true for all written texts, if they are carefully copied. It is
>the
>> nature of digital information.
Anthony, The above is "Bollocks"
Please tell my why all egyptian Hieroglyphics cannot be understood !
There is no digital in the natural world (It has only existed since
the finding of electricity)
The written word can be corrupted just as easily as a tif or jpg file
on your hard disk !
And as for "The Torah" tell me, Were all the copies of it exactly the
same ?
Were the characters all exactly the same dimensions (Every one on
every line on every page !)
The answer is NO !
And so they are NOT exact copies of it are they !!!
(So that pisses on your camp fire doesn't it !)
Anthony
> But try this: Joyce writes "...riverrun, past Eve and
> Adam's..." Now, what does that mean? do we all agree that
> it means one thing?
We don't have to. The text is digital, even if it is poetry.
> It seems to me that there is a dimension of language,
> written or spoken, that exceeds or defies its literal,
> digital aspect.
So? That dimension, if it exists, is not embodied in the text, and so it is
not relevant here.
> No, language is not merely digital.
Text is digital. Insofar as language is represented by text (or phonemes,
in spoken language), it is digital.
I'm not exactly of what point you are trying to make.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37d14120...@news.dabsol.net...
> Anthony, The above is "Bollocks"
Everything I've described is information theory, developed and proven before
I was born. If you are going to try and invalidate it all today, when so
much of the world is based on it, you're going to have to come up with
something more cogent than calling it "bollocks."
> Please tell my why all egyptian Hieroglyphics cannot
> be understood !
We don't have any dictionaries or grammars for the language, and there are
no surviving native readers or writers of the language.
> There is no digital in the natural world (It has only existed since
> the finding of electricity) ...
I don't mean for this to sound rude, but your statement betrays such a very
dramatic misunderstanding of the whole meaning of "digital," insofar as I
can tell, that I'm not even exactly sure how to address it.
Digital representations have existed for as long as we have. They have
nothing at all to do with electricity.
> The written word can be corrupted just as easily as a
> tif or jpg file on your hard disk !
That is irrelevant.
> And as for "The Torah" tell me, Were all the copies of it exactly the
> same ?
I don't know. All copies _could be_ the same, though, since it is digital
information.
> Were the characters all exactly the same dimensions (Every one on
> every line on every page !)
That is irrelevant.
> And so they are NOT exact copies of it are they !!!
The information is passed on intact, without loss, and that is the essence
of digital technology.
> So that pisses on your camp fire doesn't it !
Not in the least.
-- Anthony
SpooRL
>> It seems to me that there is a dimension of language,
>> written or spoken, that exceeds or defies its literal,
>> digital aspect.
>So? That dimension, if it exists, is not embodied in the text, and so it >is
>not relevant here.
If it exists? I think that you just made my point for me.
""Bitzer," said Thomas Gradgrind. "Your definition of a horse."
"Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely, twenty-four grinders, four
eye teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy country,
sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by
marks in mouth." Thus (and much more) Bitzer.
"Now girl number twenty," said Thomas Grandgrind. "You know what a horse
is.""
--Dickens, Hard Times
Spoo
SpooRL
>Everything I've described is information theory, developed and proven
Not every aspect of a theory is proven, by definition; it is based upon models
which are openly subject to revision and modification.
I have a question for you: Is DNA digital?
Spoo
SpooRL
>past.
C'mon folks. yer makin me feel old here at forty. I have slides-- Ektachromes
among them, that look pretty darn good yet after 15-20 years (for color; I've
gotten better). Stuff my father shot in the sixties on E process chrome already
looked pretty sad by age 15. I'd say it's holding up well. My Ektachromes don't
match my Kodachromes for color, but they never did.
Is it me, or is E100S too yellow?
Spoo
Only me...
Nick Hadlow <Ni...@tungle.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> The issues are surely more to do with absolute quality of the image when
> stored in a digital format and the costs of storage and storage refresh.
> I think it is highly likely that digital will, for almost all practical
> purposes, become the winner within a few decades at most.
It depends. For industry, yes, of course it will, simply because the
huge amounts of date will require less space to store in a digital domain.
Even the huge costs of maintaining such an archive may outweigh the
disadvantages. However, for those with small image libraries, that are
perhaps a few thousand or less, it makes more sense to use BOTH methods, and
not giver preference over one. However, when you consider the cost to the
private individual, which I doubt anyone has, it is actually extremely
expensive to store high quality images digitally.
I have around 12,000 images that I currently keep on file. About 9000
of them are 35mm trannies, scanned, and saved as 18Mb TIFF files. I have
3000 or so 6x6 trannies, also scanned and saved as 56Mb tiff files. So
that's 162Gb of 35mm slides, and 168Gb of 6x6 slides. I know hard drives are
becoming cheaper, but that's a bit much. OK, so I use CDs, but that still
requires 250 CDs for my 35mm collection, and 258 CDs for my medium format
collection. That's around £500 just to store such a small amount of data.
This argument has become so out of context, that it's now meaningless. Why
should I spend half a grand storing files, when I can store them for free by
using traditional archival techniques? Then, when a format changes, I'll
have nothing to do, but if I relied solely upon data, I would be paying a
lot of money everytime a more efficient storage medium became available,
simply to try and save money in the future. I'll have to spend, in order to
save long term. At the end of it all anyway, there's no data to suggest
that one is actually better than the other, or at least not significant
enough to warrant me spending so much.
David.
Anthony
> Not every aspect of a theory is proven, by definition; it is
> based upon models which are openly subject to revision and
> modification.
That is true of all knowledge.
> I have a question for you: Is DNA digital?
I don't know enough about how it works to say. Biochemistry is not my
field.
-- Anthony
SpooRL
>I don't know enough about how it works to say. Biochemistry is not my
>field.
Information theory is certainly not mine. But you say, "if it depends upon
symbols rather than physical models, it is digital."
Certainly DNA contains a symbolic sequence. Frog DNA contains enough
information to create, or re-create, its analog, a frog, but there is no
physical model, no "little frog" contained within it. The molocule itself and
the cell nucleus that protects it can be seen as the analog medium that stores
this information. The sequence can be copied intact from media to media via
cell mitosis. But the information, the sequence, cannot presently be copied
from its existing medium to a different one with any hope of success (making a
new analog, a new frog, from it), partly because of the vast amount of
sequenced signals it contains, but also because the analog meduim, the DNA
molocule and cell, must be present for the signals to be capable of initiating
the sequence whereby a new analog is reproduced from the information. Does
information theory address this seeming oddity of fidelity to an analog medium?
Rick Spoo
Jasper Janssen
>The Torah. It consists of digital information, and copies existing today
>are identical to copies that are centuries old. There has been no loss.
>This is true for all written texts, if they are carefully copied. It is the
>nature of digital information.
You are very sadly mistaken.
Theory is all well and good, but in the real world, there is no such
thing as lossless copying, or even storage.
And if you think a Torah from around, say, 10 centuries ago has the
same information in it as one from today, you are, quite simply,
worng.
Jasper
Nick Hadlow
<spo...@aol.com> writes
>
>>Everything I've described is information theory, developed and proven
>
>which are openly subject to revision and modification.
>
>
It's interesting to note (and I'm not meaning to pick out this poster in
particular but it's at the end of the thread at the moment) that
everyone who is persisting in disagreeing with Anthony's (manifestly
correct) points about the written or printed word being 'digital'
seems only to want to attack Anthony, not the various others who have
also pointed out that text is a media-independent encoding of
information and therefore, in the terms of this discussion about
longevity, 'digital'. (Unlike DNA)
And one or two people have sought to argue against this by reproducing
fragments of Joyce and Dickens on Usenet!
It all looks like a conspiracy against Anthony to me ;-)
--
Nick Hadlow, UK
Nick Hadlow
>
>Nick Hadlow <Ni...@tungle.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>> The issues are surely more to do with absolute quality of the image when
>> stored in a digital format and the costs of storage and storage refresh.
>> I think it is highly likely that digital will, for almost all practical
>> purposes, become the winner within a few decades at most.
>
> It depends. For industry, yes, of course it will, simply because the
>huge amounts of date will require less space to store in a digital domain.
>Even the huge costs of maintaining such an archive may outweigh the
>disadvantages. However, for those with small image libraries, that are
>perhaps a few thousand or less, it makes more sense to use BOTH methods, and
>not giver preference over one. However, when you consider the cost to the
>private individual, which I doubt anyone has, it is actually extremely
>expensive to store high quality images digitally.
>
>
>David.
My contention is that the digital stuff will continue to get cheaper and
its quality better; information storage will become denser as it becomes
cheaper (because no-one will buy bulkier media). I actually think the
timescale of 'a few decades' I quoted above is very conservative.
I think that chemical cameras will become increasingly a specialist
technology as, say, 2megapixel digital cameras with decent optics come
down to the price point of a good quality SLR film camera kit - $500 or
so. Once the capture of images is done in the digital domain, it is
difficult to see that analogue archiving will make much sense.
This might not be a Good Thing in terms of absolute quality - look at
the crippled compromise of CD audio quality - but it'll happen.
--
Nick Hadlow, UK
Anthony
> This might not be a Good Thing in terms of absolute
> quality - look at the crippled compromise of CD audio
> quality - but it'll happen.
If you look at the total chain from performing artist to normal end
listener, CD audio has improved quality by an order of magnitude at least.
Digital photography should do the same. DVD has done the same for recorded
video. And they are all digital, which is no coincidence.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Information theory is certainly not mine. But you say,
> "if it depends upon symbols rather than physical models,
> it is digital."
Right.
> Certainly DNA contains a symbolic sequence.
I guess so. I don't know how DNA encoding gets changed into actual
physiological characteristics.
> Does information theory address this seeming oddity of
> fidelity to an analog medium?
Information theory is independent of these considerations.
-- Anthony
Anthony
news:37e34a69....@news.casema.net...
> You are very sadly mistaken.
No, I am absolutely correct. At least I agree with people like Claude
Shannon or Alan Turing, and they seemed to know what they were talking
about, particularly since their theories led to real-world, practical
solutions.
> Theory is all well and good, but in the real world, there is no such
> thing as lossless copying, or even storage.
In the digital realm, there is.
> And if you think a Torah from around, say, 10 centuries ago has the
> same information in it as one from today, you are, quite simply,
> worng.
My understanding is that the creation of Torahs is extremely rigorous, so
that _zero_ errors are introduced into new copies. It's perfectly possible
to accomplish.
-- Anthony
SpooRL
>I guess so. I don't know how DNA encoding gets changed into actual
>physiological characteristics.
>> Does information theory address this seeming oddity of
>> fidelity to an analog medium?
>Information theory is independent of these considerations.
> -- Anthony
Perhaps. If so, let's call my digression "applied information theory." I'm not
trying to waste your time here, because I'm getting to a practical point with
this regarding information and storage issues. DNA replication is a process of
digital copying in which both the sequenced digits of information, the code,
and the analog medium that stores and seeks to preserve it, are reproduced
simultaneously, because in the process of copying, the code executes a function
whereby the the analog medium is physically reproduced and renewed indefinitely
so long as an energy source is supplied to maintain it. Moreover, changes to
the analog medium (which in our cold storage availible systems degrades or
corrupts the information it stores), can actually improve its complexity and
performance (molecular mutation). Thus by creating a large enough pool of
copies, those improved by mutation will copy faster and swamp the existing
quantity of analog medium (evolution). Thus you have a self-upgrading system.
Let's put it another way: life is best archival storage medium known in the
universe. It can avoid entropy, unlike a cold storage file, because it can
manipulate the analog storage medium at the molecular level if in the presence
of a constant energy source (such as the sun). The information sequences
contained intact within all DNA date back an estimated four or five billion
years. That's archival.
Spoo
Nick Hadlow
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> writes
clearly, subjectively apparent that the sampling rate of standard CD is
inadequate. I have a (TEAC) CD player which is, I suppose, equivalent
to a Nikon F90X, maybe a F100. I have, as it happens, a (Pink Triangle)
record player of very similar cost and market position to the CD player.
They sit in a suitable system which was, initially, bought with the
turntable so there may be a bias ....
Good vinyl blows CD away. No arguments, no dissent from any listener
I've tried. However, vinyl tends not to stay that good without almost
grotesque curation. CD is convenient and generally very good. me, I
buy almost exclusively new CDs and a lot of cheap vinyl when I have the
time to go to second-hand events.
Of course, a lot of more recent stuff was recorded straight down to
44.7. In which case, the digital copy you buy in Mr. Dingo's record
store is as good as it's gonna sound.
Digital will win because of cost and convenience. There's a huge amount
of argument behind that proposition that I will not get involved in.
--
Nick Hadlow, UK
SpooRL
Killfile time for Gattzbee and Rustyrd.
By the way, you two sound a lot like alike. And both of you share a curious
habit of signing no name.
Tu sabes?
Spoo
SpooRL
>> written or spoken, that exceeds or defies its literal,
>> digital aspect.
>So? That dimension, if it exists, is not embodied in the text, and so it >is
>not relevant here.
It is relevant, on second thought. The reason that B-I-R-D is information where
D-B-R-I is gibberish is because the brain has been taught to associate words,
that is, digital sequences, cognitively, with objects, actions, concepts, etc.
The process of decoding in the brain thus involves the conversion of digital
information into analog. You read "bird" and picture a feathered thing; the
mental picture is an analog. At the same time, the word BIRD derives from a
mental analog and not from the thing itself, just as an image scan of a picture
of a bird digitizes the picture and not the bird.
Spoo
Anthony
> The process of decoding in the brain thus involves the conversion of
digital
> information into analog.
The brain is a digital computer.
-- Anthony
Only me...
> <SNIP purely to shorten this posting>
And to remove the actual costs I mentioned? ;-)
> My contention is that the digital stuff will continue to get cheaper and
> its quality better; information storage will become denser as it becomes
> cheaper (because no-one will buy bulkier media). I actually think the
> timescale of 'a few decades' I quoted above is very conservative.
>
> I think that chemical cameras will become increasingly a specialist
> technology as, say, 2megapixel digital cameras with decent optics come
> down to the price point of a good quality SLR film camera kit
But 2 megapixel is nowhere near teh quality of 35mm film. Not even
close.
- $500 or
> so. Once the capture of images is done in the digital domain, it is
> difficult to see that analogue archiving will make much sense.
I agree with that of course. If the image is digital to start with, of
course. However, if it's not, you STILL advocate digital storage. That
baffles me.
>
>
> This might not be a Good Thing in terms of absolute quality - look at
> the crippled compromise of CD audio quality - but it'll happen.
"It will happen" has Orwelian tones to it :-) It will happen if you
want it to. I'll not be using digital storage as my main archive. We will
have a choice you know ;-)
David.
Anthony
news:7qtmgo$kg3$2...@gxsn.com...
> But 2 megapixel is nowhere near teh quality of 35mm film. Not
> even close.
Not quite true. Achieving the _theoretical_ resolution limits of 35mm film
is not trivial in practice. All you have to do is fail to focus correctly,
and all that theoretical resolution is gone. For the average person, using
a P&S camera or even an SLR (inadequately), real-world images may not be
noticeably better than 2 M pixels. Yes, you can do much better with film
under the right conditions, but many people (including photographers, in
many applications) don't, and don't care.
I was leafing through a collection of famous photos from Magnum a few days
ago, and I noticed that none of them are that sharp--in fact, if they
resolved even two million pixels, that would surprise me. Many were grainy
and less than perfectly focused. Despite this, they were all great.
There's more to life than resolution.
-- Anthony
Jasper Janssen
>Jasper Janssen <jas...@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message
>news:37e34a69....@news.casema.net...
>> Theory is all well and good, but in the real world, there is no such
>> thing as lossless copying, or even storage.
>
>In the digital realm, there is.
Nope. Not in the real world. Only in theory.
>My understanding is that the creation of Torahs is extremely rigorous, so
>that _zero_ errors are introduced into new copies. It's perfectly possible
>to accomplish.
No, Anthony, it ain't. And if you think that on a book the size of the
Torah, no errors will creep in just because umpteen rabbis spellcheck
each and every copy, you are also simply wrong.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>Good vinyl blows CD away. No arguments, no dissent from any listener
>I've tried. However, vinyl tends not to stay that good without almost
Except of course in situations where the listeners don't know which is
which, when there has never been a significant result one way or the
other.
>grotesque curation. CD is convenient and generally very good. me, I
>buy almost exclusively new CDs and a lot of cheap vinyl when I have the
>time to go to second-hand events.
Vinyl uses a lossy reproduction method. While you're playing it for
the very first time, the needle is already doing so much damage to the
plastic that it results in (inaudible) differences.
Unless you use one of those $100.000 record players, of course, that
use a laserbeam as pick-up element. And then feed the result through a
few digital stages before re-ADC-ing it.
Jasper
SpooRL
digital
>> information into analog.
>The brain is a digital computer.
And what happens in your brain when you read the word "bird"?
RS
SpooRL
computer. If it were, the converse would be true: A digital computer is a
brain. The brain is far more than merely a digital computer. A computer
requires an added analog medium to translates digital data, for example. It
cannot take a digital scan and make an anolog with it in the absence of
something like a monitor or printer. The brain is integrated on an almost
immeasurably higher level, and has the necessary analog medium incorporated
(key word) to convert digits to pictures, say, with no assistance or accessory
attachments. I can read "rock" and picture a rock in my head. That mental
picture--which is real-- is created physically by a host of integrated cebreral
activities. Things are firing away in the cortex to prodiuce that mental
picture. It is physical. It is an analog. It is truer to say that a digital
computer is an attempt at an artificial brain. Since all computers are an
extension of the digitizing abiltiy of our intellect (we invented them, and
they are "created in our image"), the brain is the model, the archetype. To
say that "the brain is a digital computer" creates a stilted model. It is
reminiscent of mechanistic models of the Enlightenment which are centuries old
and completely obsolete. You've got the cart before the horse. If (and I say if
because I don't know a) much about it, and b) am drawing upon your statements)
information theory is this mediocre in its premises, it is situated in a back
corner of Plato's Cave and its proponents are busy watching shadows on the
wall.
Spoo
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
least do so from the same email account? I've now got three different kill
entries for you, Anthony!
--
: Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
: Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
: +1 503 635 3229
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
(SpooRL) wrote:
> ... The information sequences
> contained intact within all DNA date back an estimated four or five billion
> years. That's archival.
I think that's stretching it. They've recently found molecular fossils of
eukaryotes about 2.7 billion years old, and I don't think prokaryotes
(bacteria) go back more than a billion years before that. Estimates of the
Earth's age are only about 4.5 billion years.
Also, I don't believe any DNA from that age actually survives. They don't
have actual fossils, or even organic molecules -- they have secondary
break-down products, which they euphamistically call "molecular fossils."
These are more like what they found in the Mars meteorite than hard,
"smoking gun" evidence.
Even less likely is that DNA that old has been copied perfectly down
through the ages. DNA is subject to random mutations -- "copying errors"
-- that drive evolution, but that also must be seen for what they are --
copying errors.
Getting back to the topic, fools like Anthony are deluded that digital
information is "infinitely copyable without error" based on best-case
error rates. Today's information has not been tested to the extent that
biological information has been tested, with DNA weighing in in the
terabyte or even petabyte range, yet still subject to random errors.
Anthony, et. al., also state that you "merely" need a good backup regime.
I just bought 100 CDR disks from CompUSA, and burnt about a quarter of
them before discovering that they are rife with random errors. They passed
the CDR burn verifacation phase, but now show random error when I try to
copy something back. THIS IS THE MOST LIKELY, AND MOST DANGEROUS FAILURE
MODE! Had I not read them back immediately, I would not know they were
funky. Perhaps they would have taken a week to go funky, perhaps a year,
perhaps ten years, but who knows? When my backup regime, based on the best
available MTBF data, scheduled a back-up of my back-up, I'd be copying bad
data.
All I can say is it's a good thing I have all those imperfect, lossy
negatives and slides to re-scan, since the "perfect digital copies" let me
down!
The point is that failures are expressed as probabilities. We successfully
make billions of copies of our DNA every day, but with just a few errors
in key places, we get cancer.
So I could make two back-ups all the time, on different burners, on
different manufacturer's media, and store them at different sites. That
makes the probability of catastrophic error less, but does not eliminate
it. Why do you think no media manufacturer guarantees media for the value
of the data placed on it? Sure, they'll replace the CDR, but not the
potentially Pulitzer-winning photos on it, because THEY ARE NOT PERMANENT
JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DIGITAL!
Digital perfection and permanence is a dangerous delusion, made
comfortable by people like Anthony who know and abuse the names of a few
famous information theorists, but whom are incapable of imagining
practical, day-to-day problems.
PS: avoid CompUSA-branded CDR disks! :-)
John or Jenn
bandh...@aol.com writes:
>I believe my behavior for the 5+ years I've been online conforms to the
>newsgroup charters (see http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm), to
>generally accepted "netequitte," and to generally accepted levels of reasonable
>business behavior.
I remember when Henry started posting...he was a welcome addition to
rec.photo
Most of the rec.photo newsgroups have, largely, decayed to the point
where I find it barely worth following them anymore, but Henry has
consistently posted appropriate, useful, on-topic, and informative
articles that, as he indicates, follow netiquette and charter.
It seems anytime a person has a single (even trifling) sub-optimal
experience with B&H that they feel compelled to Śwarn everyone about
those crooks at B&Hą...you know what? B&H is far and away the best
for new photo shopping. They do a lot of volume, so, belive it or not,
the law of averages indicates that theyąre going to make mistakes now
and then. Itąs mighty nice theyąve got Henry acting as a focal point
for netizens who run into these mistakes. Itąs also mighty nice that
you can ping Henry for advice when youąre deciding what to order.
Bottom line, Henry is welcome hereabouts.
My $0.02,
John (rec.photoąing off and on since Ś91)
SpooRL
Conceded. Point's really the same, though. RS
Anthony
<J...@Bytesmiths.com.gov> wrote in message
news:Jan-050999...@c248527-c.potlnd1.or.home.com...
> If you're going to keep spouting dogmatic gibberish,
> can you please at least do so from the same email
> account? I've now got three different kill
> entries for you, Anthony!
I've always used the same e-mail account.
-- Anthony
Anthony
> Nope. Not in the real world. Only in theory.
It is surprising how well theory applies to practice.
> No, Anthony, it ain't.
Maybe they should copy Torahs by automated means; then there would be no
errors.
> And if you think that on a book the size of the Torah,
> no errors will creep in just because umpteen rabbis
> spellcheck each and every copy, you are also simply wrong.
How many errors does the average copy contain?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> And what happens in your brain when you read the word "bird"?
I don't know... what happens?
-- Anthony
Anthony
> If it helps, which I am beginning to doubt, the brain
> is not a didgital computer.
Not only is it digital, it even has a master clock, that runs at about 40
Hz.
> I can read "rock" and picture a rock in my head. That
> mental picture--which is real-- is created physically by
> a host of integrated cebreral activities.
Describe them.
> Things are firing away in the cortex to prodiuce that mental
> picture.
Things don't fire in a discrete way in analog computers, so what you are
describing here is digital.
> It is physical. It is an analog.
An analog is a direct physical model of something else. What is the brain
modeling, and where, and how?
> If ... information theory is this mediocre in its premises,
> it is situated in a back corner of Plato's Cave and its
> proponents are busy watching shadows on the wall.
Why don't you look into it, and find out?
-- Anthony
Nick Hadlow
<jas...@janssen.dynip.com> writes
>Nick Hadlow <Ni...@tungle.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Good vinyl blows CD away. No arguments, no dissent from any listener
>>I've tried. However, vinyl tends not to stay that good without almost
>
>Except of course in situations where the listeners don't know which is
>which, when there has never been a significant result one way or the
>other.
>
even say you're wrong (although you are) ;-)
>>grotesque curation. CD is convenient and generally very good. me, I
>>buy almost exclusively new CDs and a lot of cheap vinyl when I have the
>>time to go to second-hand events.
>
>Vinyl uses a lossy reproduction method. While you're playing it for
>the very first time, the needle is already doing so much damage to the
>plastic that it results in (inaudible) differences.
can be very audible (for good and bad). As I said, this is the wrong NG
to debate this; the point is that cost and convenience will drive out
quality in photography as (I believe it has) in audio, as long as any
loss in quality is not important to the majority of users.
>
>Unless you use one of those $100.000 record players, of course, that
>use a laserbeam as pick-up element. And then feed the result through a
>few digital stages before re-ADC-ing it.
hand-sharpened thorn and a transducer incorporating sheep-gut ;-) (No,
like Wagner's music, digital's not as bad as it sounds ...)
--
Nick Hadlow, UK
SpooRL
>> mental picture--which is real-- is created physically by
>> a host of integrated cebreral activities.
>Describe them.
I cannot, and it's moot. You say that "Digital is no less the "real thing" than
an image captured on film," and "all digital media are actually analog storage
mechanisms." This means that the squence of signals are captured physically,
whether on Jaz Drive or in the brain, at least the human brain. I can now think
of your picture of La Sorbonne (which I like); I have digitized visual
information; and for obvious reasons, if I look at it longer, I will create
more visual data and store it, and the memory will grow clearer. I am studying
it now; trying to guess the focal length and film; but the image is not up on
my screen. I am seeing it in my mind. I am seeing windows and the nice soft
colors of the stone and the face of the person cut off on the lower left. What
I want to know is what this image I see is, if it is not an analog depiction of
digital signals in the memory? I might have an exceedingly vivid dream tonight
which at some point features an image of your picture. (I assume that you dream
also.) If the dream image does not represent an anolog or "phyically modeled"
depiction of digital data stored in the brain (and I will gladly concede that
it Does Not if I am missing something obvious), what equivalent thing does a
mechanical computer do that does not require output to an analog generator
(screen image, print)? Do computers dream about our scans?
Spoo
Anthony
> I cannot, and it's moot.
It's not quite moot if you believe that thought is an analog process.
> What I want to know is what this image I see is, if it is
> not an analog depiction of digital signals in the memory?
What you are really asking is "What is the nature of consciousness?"
Currently, we don't even know that consciousness is a physical process at
all (I don't think it is). Do you really want to get into a metaphysical
discussion that will involve neither analog nor digital processes?
> Do computers dream about our scans?
Computers are not conscious entities, as far as we know.
-- Anthony
SpooRL
> not an analog depiction of digital signals in the memory?
What you are really asking is "What is the nature of consciousness?"
Currently, we don't even know that consciousness is a physical process at
all (I don't think it is). Do you really want to get into a metaphysical
discussion that will involve neither analog nor digital processes?
This is very good reply. I am perhaps asking about the nature of consciousness,
but I seek an empirical answer to that question, not a philosophical one,
because I am trained in empircial science, and I seek to quantify, though you
can see that my pragmatism has a ragged edge. I think that there is a
fundamental aspect of information storage in living organisms that is not clear
to us, and may provide some useful insight to the practical difficulties with
the mechanical information systems we devolop. The topic is fascinating, and
the first thing I must do is find some written material on information theory
and study it (feel free to suggest some sources, if you wish). My ignorance of
that field precludes any precise or meaningful discussion, so it's time to hit
the books.
Thanks Anthony.
Richard
Jasper Janssen
>>> ... The information sequences
>>> contained intact within all DNA date back an estimated four or five billion
>>> years. That's archival.
>
>Conceded. Point's really the same, though. RS
No DNA from more than, say, 1 billion years survives. No DNA from more
than 100 years dead survives _intact_. Remember the various efforts to
get the DNA from frozen-in-Siberia (ie, best case scenario for
preservation of DNA..) dead horses of the species that went extinct
in.. 189x, IIRC)? No more than a few thousand basepairs in sequence
could be extracted intact.
Yes, you can get some mammoth DNA from those mammoths who were found,
again in Siberia under ideal conditions for survival, after being
there for 30.000 years. But no more than a few hundred basepairs in
sequence. Certainly not entire chromosomes, who have on the order of,
IIRC, trillions of basepairs.
IOW, DNA as archival material is worse than friggin' papyrus.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>Jasper Janssen <jas...@janssen.dynip.com> wrote in message
>news:38017f98....@news.casema.net...
>
>> Nope. Not in the real world. Only in theory.
>
>It is surprising how well theory applies to practice.
Yes, you can predict movements of cannonballs quite accurately with
Newtonian mechanics. Movements of molecules you cannot predict with
any current physical theory.
>Maybe they should copy Torahs by automated means; then there would be no
>errors.
Hah. It is to laugh. Keep telling yourself that, and you might start
believing it. Do you also believe that because cars are now mostly put
together by robots, there will never be a construction failure?
Humans fail, Anthony. Machinery fails as well, just less of the time.
>How many errors does the average copy contain?
3-4.
And yes, that's very low. But it's not zero.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>In article <38028032....@news.casema.net>, Jasper Janssen
><jas...@janssen.dynip.com> writes
>>Except of course in situations where the listeners don't know which is
>>which, when there has never been a significant result one way or the
>>other.
>>
>Ummm .... not going to start \this\ one up in a photography NG. I won't
>even say you're wrong (although you are) ;-)
Point me to some double-blind studies that prove me wrong, and I'll be
happy to.
Actually, I'll go one further than that. Point me to any double-blind
studies at all that set off typical audiophile kit (the ones my dad
has..) against studio kit, and have the audiophiles win, and I'll
admit I'm wrong.
I'm seriously interested to hear if any exist.
>>
>>Vinyl uses a lossy reproduction method. While you're playing it for
>>the very first time, the needle is already doing so much damage to the
>>plastic that it results in (inaudible) differences.
>CD is lossy by definition. Vinyl isn't. The difference between them
Oh, yes, vinyl is lossy by definition. Look at a brandnew record under
extreme microscopic magnification. Play it once. Look again. Do not be
alarmed by what you see. Be very, very afraid. (No points for
mentioning the source)
Cd is lossy, but at least over the life of a CD (ie, 10-20 years or
so) quality doesn't get worse and worse with every time you play it.
It remains at just about the same level (some bits deteriorate, but
not very audibly, unlike a record which has been played too often).
And if you have good recording kit, and a really good ADC (digitise at
24 bits 88 kHz, downsample from there is now the studio standard, I
believe), coupled with a reasonably good pick-up device and a good
DAC, there's gonna be less loss in the digitisation steps than in the
amp stages.
>They apparently don't sound as good as something using a really good
>hand-sharpened thorn and a transducer incorporating sheep-gut ;-) (No,
>like Wagner's music, digital's not as bad as it sounds ...)
Like this example, audiophile kit, beyond, say, $5k for a system,
works on placebo effect alone. Of course, if you have the cash and it
sounds better to you, by all means, go for it, but it remains a
placebo.
Jasper
Anthony
> Oh, yes, vinyl is lossy by definition. Look at a brandnew record under
> extreme microscopic magnification. Play it once. Look again. Do not be
> alarmed by what you see. Be very, very afraid. (No points for
> mentioning the source)
This is why I was so happy to see CD audio. With vinyl, unless you spent
thousands of dollars on a turntable and cartridge, and unless the discs were
originally mastered and pressed with extraordinary attention to quality, you
just didn't get very good sound. And even if all these conditions were met,
you only got the best sound on the first pass. I used to zap my discs with
clicking static guns and brush them and pamper them, but in the final
analysis, I couldn't stand the fact that just listening to them ruined them.
I couldn't enjoy them. At least with CDs I can listen to the same thing all
day long and never wear anything out.
> Like this example, audiophile kit, beyond, say, $5k for
> a system, works on placebo effect alone.
$5000 is already a lot. I only paid $750: $600 for headphones, and $150 for
a Discman. Sounds great.
With CD audio you get 99% of the quality at 3% of the price.
-- Anthony