Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

JPEG fading and Sensor size

6 views
Skip to first unread message

cjcampbell

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 1:33:17 AM3/13/06
to
Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
anyway.

This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.

Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were
12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.

Compressing the JPEG file as much as possible will also reduce the
damage done by cosmic rays and UV light.

Another problem with large storage devices also applies to camera
sensors. A larger storage device or camera sensor must have the data
"stretched" over a larger area, creating holes in your pictures. This
is why photos taken with the Canon 5D appear thin and faded compared to
pictures taken with a cell phone. The cell phone has a smaller sensor
and is able to concentrate the picture better. The most advanced
cameras all have smaller sensors for this reason, while primitive DSLRS
must continue to have large sensors in order remain backwards
compatible with lenses and other accessories. Some camera manufacturers
have attempted to load the larger sensors up with more pixels in an
attempt to fill the quantum holes created by stretching the picture too

thinly, but it is obvious that the quantum limits on number of pixels
that can be placed on a large sensor has been surpassed. This is also
why manufacturers of DSLRS tend to use inexpensive CF memory instead of
smaller SD cards. After all, even though the CF card is larger, it does

not appreciably thin out the picture more than it already comes from
the sensor. The Nikon D50 does use SD cards, which accounts for why its
pictures are brighter and sharper than those taken with the nearly
identical D70.

Placing an already too thin picture from a Canon 5D on a giant CD-ROM
will almost guarantee very rapid fading and loss of sharpness. It is
the worst of both worlds.

JPEG quality is also affected by picture size. Obviously, a photo that
has fewer pixels will concentrate the data more and store it in a
smaller area, leaving it less vulnerable to deterioration.

So, if you want JPEG pictures that last a long time, follow these
simple rules:

1) Use a pocket camera with a tiny sensor.
2) Use the highest compression possible.
3) Use the smallest picture size available for your camera.
4) Store it on the smallest memory card available.
5) Make sure there is only one copy.

Charles

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:31:16 AM3/13/06
to
On 12 Mar 2006 22:33:17 -0800, "cjcampbell"
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Good advice!

should I store my jpegs in the refrigerator, or in an oven where they
stay warm?


dh

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:53:57 AM3/13/06
to
To sign up or learn more, click here:
https://www.paypal.com/us/mrb/pal=XT5TXXLGSGEGJ
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thank you.
-Dave


dh

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 3:02:36 AM3/13/06
to
To sign up or learn more, click here:
https://www.paypal.com/us/mrb/pal=XT5TXXLGSGEGJ
"Charles" <ckr...@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:ns7a12t92nrg8ba46...@4ax.com...

You store them in the microwave. Since it is designed to keep microwaves in,
it will also keep them out.
-Dave


Ron Hunter

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:33:12 AM3/13/06
to

I hope you follow your own advice.
People who post such stupid and misleading disinformation should reap
the same as they sow.

For those newbies, or non-technical people who might have read the post
quoted here, it is published a bit early. April 1st is a few weeks away.

Zorba the Geek

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 5:24:23 AM3/13/06
to
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:BI6dnXmuPJ_EoYjZ...@giganews.com...
If anybody's so thick as to not realise that this is a joke, then they're
not really safe to be let loose with a camera in the first place.

Mind you, looking at the way 'Joe Public' often use cameras, I wouldn't be
surprised if half of them of them *did* think that this was a serious
article.

Lighten up for God's sake, it was a joke! It certainly made me laugh :o)


Paul Rubin

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 5:54:22 AM3/13/06
to
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.

Best post of the year! ;-).

SimonLW

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 7:11:44 AM3/13/06
to
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Well that's it! I'm switching back to film. At least my slides and negs
aren't affected by nanobytes, the tiny bugs nybble on bits.
-S


All Things Mopar

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 7:47:56 AM3/13/06
to
Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand

> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
> sun.

Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.

After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford

John Fryatt

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 8:32:36 AM3/13/06
to
All Things Mopar wrote:
> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
> box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
> into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
> Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.

Pop down to the shops and get a new sense of humour, the one you're
using now is worn out. :-)

Randall Ainsworth

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 8:34:11 AM3/13/06
to
Good thing I shoot RAW.

Zorba the Geek

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:02:48 AM3/13/06
to
"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...

> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
> box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
> into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
> Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
>
>
Oh dear, another grey humourless being with a sense of humour lobotomy!


All Things Mopar

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:05:10 AM3/13/06
to
Today John Fryatt commented courteously on the subject at
hand

look in the mirror, moron, then talk to yourself - you're gone.

All Things Mopar

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:07:22 AM3/13/06
to
Today Zorba the Geek commented courteously on the subject at
hand

> "All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
> news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...
>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>> hand
>>
>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos
>>> have such a short shelf life. You can slow the process
>>> down somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>>
>>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic
>>> fields emanating from your computer monitor and other
>>> peripherals -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays
>>> coming from the sun.
>>
>> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the
>> cereal box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later
>> JPEG scans into the present day, ditto for /all/ my
>> digitals since 2001. Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>>
>> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.
>>
>>
> Oh dear, another grey humourless being with a sense of
> humour lobotomy!
>

people in this NG often tend to be of several categories:
elitists, morons who post OT crap to entice more morons to
reply, and trolls. Which are you? All of the above? In any
event, I tire quickly of crap on this NG that gets in the way
of its purpose. So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
"u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense, and I
have even less when it comes to trolls - like you. Don't
reply, I won't see you anymore, troll.

Zorba the Geek

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 10:22:52 AM3/13/06
to
"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97855CD4...@216.196.97.131...
Well seeing as you've asked, I can only offer the courtesy of a reply,
whether you chose to read it or not. Personally I'm none of the above, but
there do seem seem to be other categories of people on here, such as
pedantic bores, newsgroup nazis and aggressive loud mouths. I note your
quaint colonial variation of the English language, and therefore make
allowances for it without commenting further.

I can understand people on here being tired of the vulgar spam, but
occasional innocuous posts, that inject a rare moment of levity are surely
harmless, unless of course you have some vindictive desire to deny the world
a brief moment of light-hearted relief, by imposing your personal lack of
humour on the whole group.


Bill Funk

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 10:41:00 AM3/13/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 06:47:56 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:

>Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at hand
>
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have
>> such a short shelf life. You can slow the process down
>> somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields
>> emanating from your computer monitor and other peripherals
>> -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the
>> sun.
>
>Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the cereal
>box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later JPEG scans
>into the present day, ditto for /all/ my digitals since 2001.
>Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>
>After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.

That whooshing sound you heard ...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 10:42:07 AM3/13/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:07:22 -0600, All Things Mopar
<nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:

>So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
>"u" in "humor" where I live)

Um, ...
Never mind.

John Fryatt

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 10:39:35 AM3/13/06
to
All Things Mopar wrote:
> Today John Fryatt commented courteously on the subject at
> hand
>
>> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>>> hand
>>>
>>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos
>>>> have such a short shelf life. You can slow the process
>>>> down somewhat by re-copying them every three months, but
>>>> eventually they will fade to almost nothing anyway.
>>>>
>>>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic
>>>> fields emanating from your computer monitor and other
>>>> peripherals -- even your disk drive -- and cosmic rays
>>>> coming from the sun.
>>> Where did you get such utter nonsense, the back of the
>>> cereal box? My JPEGs from 198x are still OK, as are later
>>> JPEG scans into the present day, ditto for /all/ my
>>> digitals since 2001. Absolutely 100% OK in everyway.
>>>
>>> After your opening paragraphs, I stopped reading. Can't be
>>> anything here that is even remotely correct. Don't bother
>>> replying, you'll be talking to the air, troll.

>> Pop down to the shops and get a new sense of humour, the
>> one you're using now is worn out. :-)

> look in the mirror, moron, then talk to yourself - you're gone.

Oh, 'bye then. Humourless nerk.

Zorba the Geek

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:05:36 AM3/13/06
to
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:vl4b121tl0b7is7et...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:07:22 -0600, All Things Mopar
> <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote:
>
>>So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
>>"u" in "humor" where I live)
>
> Um, ...
> Never mind.
>
>
LOL, I missed that one the first time :o)


Message has been deleted

PossumTrot

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:33:49 AM3/13/06
to
Is it April Fool's Day already? Or is this post done by someone using an
aluminum helmet?

"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Jørn Dahl-Stamnes

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:48:20 AM3/13/06
to
cjcampbell wrote:
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
> destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were
> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
> few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
> storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
> at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
> doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.

I have solved this problem by storing all my RAW files by writing down the
sequence of 0's and 1's on regular paper... As you probably know, paper can
be read after several 1000 years if stored properly... ;-)

John McWilliams

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:49:13 AM3/13/06
to
PossumTrot wrote:

> Is it April Fool's Day already? Or is this post done by someone using an
> aluminum helmet?
>
> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>>shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>>every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing

>>anyway. << Snipped bits out >>

It's a warm up for 4/1. Well done!

--
John McWilliams

"It's ever so nice to trim replies when you can".
~ Margeret Meade

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:55:06 AM3/13/06
to
"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.

ROFLAMO! Excellent job! You have captured the essence of net-kookism
here, and written an excellently humorous article.

(I was in some doubt for a while, but the summary of recommended
practices at the end settled the issue; you definitely intended this
as humor.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Darrell Larose

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 11:55:40 AM3/13/06
to
I convert my image files to colour seperation archivally processed B&W negs
that I keep in a lead box down in my old bomb shelter.

Darrell Larose

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 12:00:00 PM3/13/06
to

"cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
> destroy some of your data.

I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.

> Back in the old days when disk drives were
> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a
> few weeks!
>

The 12" laser discs usually suffered from physical damage ie: laser rot
where the media delaminated.

Bob Williams

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 12:16:42 PM3/13/06
to

cjcampbell wrote:
> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
> anyway.
>
> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>
> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably

> destroy some of your data. Back in the old days when disk drives were


> 12 inch platters (or even larger), data often did not last more than a

> few weeks! You should therefore store your most important photos on
> storage devices that are as small as possible, and use only one device
> at a time, since putting your data on two different drives more than
> doubles the risk that your data will be damaged.
>

OMIGOD!!
The process is much more complicated than I ever imagined.
Where can I read more about these incredible phenomena? <G>
Bob Williams

Battleax

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 12:29:07 PM3/13/06
to

"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97855CD4...@216.196.97.131...

snip

So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
> "u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense,

snip

So then it's "hmor" where you live? Whgat colour is the sky there?


steve

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 12:28:15 PM3/13/06
to
One thing to remember is that the more dense a file is, the nearer it
will be to the edge of your hard drive due to centrifugal
force. Bit density is a measure of the complexity of a file divided
by its size.

I usually save files as tiffs because their relitavely
low bit density tends to result in the files being stored
nearer to the centre of the disk where they should be
safer from fading.

I also clear all my CF cards to zero to lighten the load
when out hiking. Obviously the weight increases when
I take photographs so I usually limit myself to two or
three images a day unless I'm feeling really fit.

Steve


On 12 Mar 2006 22:33:17 -0800, "cjcampbell"

Darrell Larose

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 1:12:56 PM3/13/06
to

"All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97855CD4...@216.196.97.131...

> Today Zorba the Geek commented courteously on the subject at
> hand
>
>> "All Things Mopar" <nuno...@beez.wax> wrote in message
>> news:Xns97854F5D...@216.196.97.131...
>>> Today cjcampbell commented courteously on the subject at
>>> hand
>>>
>>
> people in this NG often tend to be of several categories:
> elitists, morons who post OT crap to entice more morons to
> reply, and trolls. Which are you? All of the above? In any
> event, I tire quickly of crap on this NG that gets in the way
> of its purpose. So, no, I have no sense of humor (there's no
> "u" in "humor" where I live) when it comes to nonsense, and I
> have even less when it comes to trolls - like you. Don't
> reply, I won't see you anymore, troll.
>
The rest of the English speaking World spells it humour, and colour. So
when it comes to troulls ;)

John McWilliams

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:07:13 PM3/13/06
to
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:

Fast tip 'o' the day: You can print out the RAW files' O's and 1's on
light weight bond paper. Saves 27 hours work per image, but does cost
something for ink and, well, the paper you'd use anyway.

I've just completed archiving my last shoot of 64 images, and it took a
palette and a half, weighing about 3/4 of a ton.

--
John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Måns Rullgård

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:10:17 PM3/13/06
to
"Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:

> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
>> anyway.
>>
>> This deterioration is caused by UV rays and magnetic fields emanating
>> from your computer monitor and other peripherals -- even your disk
>> drive -- and cosmic rays coming from the sun.
>>
>> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
>> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
>> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
>> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
>> destroy some of your data.
>
> I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
> the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
> really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.

If you do this it is useful to put some large junk files on the outer
parts of the disc. These files will absorb most of the rays before
they reach the precious images closer to the center. For best
protection, use shield files with a good structure capable absorbing a
large amount of rays before being saturated. Then you won't have to
burn new CDs so often.

--
Måns Rullgård
m...@inprovide.com

John McWilliams

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:21:21 PM3/13/06
to
Måns Rullgård wrote:

> "Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:

>>I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
>>the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
>>really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.
>
>
> If you do this it is useful to put some large junk files on the outer
> parts of the disc. These files will absorb most of the rays before
> they reach the precious images closer to the center. For best
> protection, use shield files with a good structure capable absorbing a
> large amount of rays before being saturated. Then you won't have to
> burn new CDs so often.

Double wrapping the HD in heavy duty tin foil will help, too. And be
sure to wrap the DVDs and CDs individually in foil with another layer
around the jewel box.

[Anyone remember the SNL skits "The Anal-Retentive Chef"?]

--
John McWilliams

Jørn Dahl-Stamnes

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:23:41 PM3/13/06
to

NO NO NO!!! Printer inc do fade due to background radiation. It must be
written by pencils and you must use font size 72 or better!!
--
--
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/Foto/

John McWilliams

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:30:55 PM3/13/06
to
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:

> John McWilliams wrote:

>>>I have solved this problem by storing all my RAW files by writing down
>>>the sequence of 0's and 1's on regular paper... As you probably know,
>>>paper can be read after several 1000 years if stored properly... ;-)
>>
>>Fast tip 'o' the day: You can print out the RAW files' O's and 1's on
>>light weight bond paper. Saves 27 hours work per image, but does cost
>>something for ink and, well, the paper you'd use anyway.
>>
>>I've just completed archiving my last shoot of 64 images, and it took a
>>palette and a half, weighing about 3/4 of a ton.
>
>
> NO NO NO!!! Printer inc do fade due to background radiation. It must be
> written by pencils and you must use font size 72 or better!!

Aaaach; you are right. But I forgot to mention wrapping the finished
papers in tin foil, something I suggest you do immediately.

--
John McWilliams

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
- Albert Einstein

Jørn Dahl-Stamnes

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:36:53 PM3/13/06
to
John McWilliams wrote:

> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>>>I have solved this problem by storing all my RAW files by writing down
>>>>the sequence of 0's and 1's on regular paper... As you probably know,
>>>>paper can be read after several 1000 years if stored properly... ;-)
>>>
>>>Fast tip 'o' the day: You can print out the RAW files' O's and 1's on
>>>light weight bond paper. Saves 27 hours work per image, but does cost
>>>something for ink and, well, the paper you'd use anyway.
>>>
>>>I've just completed archiving my last shoot of 64 images, and it took a
>>>palette and a half, weighing about 3/4 of a ton.
>>
>>
>> NO NO NO!!! Printer inc do fade due to background radiation. It must be
>> written by pencils and you must use font size 72 or better!!
>
> Aaaach; you are right. But I forgot to mention wrapping the finished
> papers in tin foil, something I suggest you do immediately.

Wooops... I'll do that at once!! And I better build a shield with 1-2 meter
lead walls to store the papers...

Måns Rullgård

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 2:52:29 PM3/13/06
to
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes <DELETE...@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> writes:

For really good preservation, roll the papers up and place them in a
cave near the Dead Sea. It's been known to work in the past.

--
Måns Rullgård
m...@inprovide.com

David

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:15:48 PM3/13/06
to
"Måns Rullgård" <m...@inprovide.com> wrote in message
news:yw1xmzfu...@agrajag.inprovide.com...

> "Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:
>
>> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>>> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>>> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
>>> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
>>> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
>>> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
>>> destroy some of your data.
>>
>> I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
>> the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man
>> I
>> really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.
>
> If you do this it is useful to put some large junk files on the outer
> parts of the disc. These files will absorb most of the rays before
> they reach the precious images closer to the center. For best
> protection, use shield files with a good structure capable absorbing a
> large amount of rays before being saturated. Then you won't have to
> burn new CDs so often.
>
> --
> Måns Rullgård
> m...@inprovide.com

How about using a green felt marker on the edge of the disc? I've heard that
that helps improve the focus and saturation of the bytes and reduces random
pixel wandering....

David


AZ Nomad

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:26:32 PM3/13/06
to


>"Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:

Why don't you get some CD protectors from the same place you get your
foil undies and hats?

Måns Rullgård

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:42:05 PM3/13/06
to
"David" <da...@nowhere.net> writes:

> How about using a green felt marker on the edge of the disc? I've
> heard that that helps improve the focus and saturation of the bytes
> and reduces random pixel wandering....

Yes, coloring the edges stops the red light from the laser escaping
sideways when the disc is read. This reduces turbulence in the data
flow. Turbulence can lead to bit migration, which in JPEGs manifests
itself as wandering or flickering pixels.

--
Måns Rullgård
m...@inprovide.com

Scott W

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:46:33 PM3/13/06
to
The best way to store image files is on punch cards, at 80 bytes per
card it only takes 600,000 cards to store a 8MP image as 16 bit/color.
At 2000 cards / box this is only 300 boxes of punched cards.

Looking at this another way all the data on a 1 Gig flash card can be
stored on just 6,250 boxes of cards.

Scott

JohnR66

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:06:24 PM3/13/06
to
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142286393....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thank You progress! : )


Dave Martindale

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:51:56 PM3/13/06
to
Jim Townsend <n...@real.address> writes:

>The centrifugal force generated by the rapidly spinning platter can knock
>the pixels out of alignment and cause the image resolution to degrade.
>With the new 10,000 RPM drives, there have been cases of pixels actually
>flying of the platter !

Just convert the image to a cylindrical projection using something like
Panorama Tools, and then it will fit on the disk drive perfectly without
being stressed.

Dave

Dave Martindale

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 6:55:36 PM3/13/06
to
"Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:

>I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
>the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man I
>really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.

Use an old astronomical telescope mount, with the CD box mounted where
the telescope once was. Align the polar axis of the mount with the
north (or south) pole just as if you were going to do some observing,
rotate the mount until the discs are edge-on to the sun, turn the drive
on, and they will stay with their edges facing the sun 24 hours a day.

Dave

William Oertell

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:05:47 PM3/13/06
to
>The centrifugal force generated by the rapidly spinning platter can knock
>the pixels out of alignment and cause the image resolution to degrade.
>With the new 10,000 RPM drives, there have been cases of pixels actually
>flying of the platter !

Is that what happened to my jpegs?!!! Now I know. And here I thought I
had poltergeists in my hard drive.


William Oertell

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 9:13:23 PM3/13/06
to
Forget it, folks. No matter what you wrap your CDs or hard drive in
those nasty neutrinos will shoot right through it, and when one of those
crashes into one of the nucleii of the CD, there goes the whole thing. And
what's the point, anyway? The sun will eventually turn into a red giant and
turn the planet into a charcoal briquette.


Nionyn

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 10:07:06 PM3/13/06
to
"William Oertell" <oerte...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:121c9m1...@news.supernews.com...

I'm planning a barbecue - you're all invited!


Ferd

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 1:59:24 AM3/14/06
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:15:48 -0700, "David" <da...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>"Måns Rullgård" <m...@inprovide.com> wrote in message
>news:yw1xmzfu...@agrajag.inprovide.com...
>> "Darrell Larose" <sp...@this.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> "cjcampbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1142231597....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Most people are surprised to discover that JPG photos have such a short
>>>> shelf life. You can slow the process down somewhat by re-copying them
>>>> every three months, but eventually they will fade to almost nothing
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Think of the constant bombardment of your storage media as a kind of
>>>> rain. Obviously, larger media such as DVDs and 5.25 inch floppy disks
>>>> will be struck by cosmic rays, UV, and other particles much more
>>>> frequently than smaller forms of media. Each particle can irrecoverably
>>>> destroy some of your data.
>>>
>>> I align all my CD's with the edge facing the rays, that way only 1.3mm of
>>> the disc is exposed. It's a challenge to keep shifting the disc 7/24. Man
>>> I
>>> really need to get some sleep, but gotta save my images.

You guys are thick. All you do is cover the center hole of the CD with
A circle of sticking plaster. Its an old trick, always works
Ferd

Bill Funk

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 2:58:13 AM3/14/06
to

And that's the GOOD news!

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Charles

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 3:06:33 AM3/14/06