Long term archiving??

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YMZ%d.755489$Xk.486944@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> Jeremy wrote:
>
>
> <BIG snip>
>
>>
>> Chances are that people will just throw the digital media out, rather
>> than
>> go to the trouble of taking it somewhere and paying to have it
>> decoded--especially if the contents (if any) are unknown.
>
> Hi...
>
> I respectfully disagree. Though perhaps it's age related;
> perhaps how family oriented you are, or how interested you
> are in your roots.
>
> Evidence the fellow that's trying to discover the colour of
> his grandparents house.
>
> Let me pose this question, if I may?
>
> Suppose you were rooting around in "old stuff", perhaps
> in the attic... and among some old albums you came across
> an exposed but undeveloped film. Would you take it in and
> pay the two or three dollars to have it processed, on the
> off-chance it may be something really worth having?

Most places won't charge if the film is blank (or unusable) but I would be
willing to risk a couple bucks incase there does happen to be an interesting
photo on it (older photo of a relative, or a house, or a car or something)

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <5j71415i1p7g764ra00bhu8lbrl6cq2uct@4ax.com>
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:15:04 GMT, Confused wrote:
>
> > Q Does anyone know of a reputable dealer of old
> > stuff where I can find an 8" disk drive? The
> > computer I want to get running is an Industrial
> > Microsystems CP/M machine.
>
> No, I don't, and I dumped mine quite a long time ago. You're
> probably familiar with 8" drives, but in case you aren't, make sure
> that if you find any that they're the right type. I imagine that if
> you can only find a single sided, single density drive you won't
> turn it down, but you'd be better off with double sided, double
> density drives. Some 8" drives that you'll probably want to skip
> over are the ones that use hard sectored disks (such as Helios) or
> those that have odd interfaces, such as Persci drives as used in
> Cromemco computers, which used voice-coil, not stepper motors. I
> remember Industrial Microsystems BTW. I didn't use them but worked
> in an office that had a couple of them just a few feet from my desk.

Thanks for the info! (And Ken, too. ;-)

Your quick refresher course reminded me of several issues I need to
check into. Off the top of my head, I *think* the drive is single
sided double density, but the documentation will have the information.
Pulling the original drive and getting the model number would help
too. ;^)

FYI The boat anchor hosts a GDS/Synergy development system (FM music
synthesizer); SN #3 of 5 made. The non-programable Synergy synth sold
around 500 units at $5000 before Yamaha nuked the USA synthesizer
industry by introducing the DX-7 FM synth at 1/4 the price (and they
discounted it). At this point it is a highly sought after collectors
item but no one wants to pay for it. MUSICIANS! Might as well be a
bunch of old photographer... LOL... but I just want to get it running
and tinker with sounds again.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:07:46 GMT, Confused wrote:

> FYI The boat anchor hosts a GDS/Synergy development system (FM music
> synthesizer); SN #3 of 5 made. The non-programable Synergy synth sold
> around 500 units at $5000 before Yamaha nuked the USA synthesizer
> industry by introducing the DX-7 FM synth at 1/4 the price (and they
> discounted it). At this point it is a highly sought after collectors
> item but no one wants to pay for it. MUSICIANS! Might as well be a
> bunch of old photographer... LOL... but I just want to get it running
> and tinker with sounds again.

A musician friend of mine had several Yamaha synths, and I believe
the DX-7 was one of them. Not sure though. He also had a midi
controller for it. Don't recall the model number but it resembled a
clarinet or perhaps a giant recorder and I think Yamaha made that as
well. I've even got one of Casio's early keyb/synths buried away
somewhere. I have no idea if it'll ever function again so I'm in no
hurry to find it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid writes:

>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> writes:
>>
>>>> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>> news:423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de...
>>>>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>>>>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>>>>
>>
>>>> The BEST way--no kidding--is to print the images on silver halide
>>>> paper, from a source like OFOTO.COM, and to store them in archival
>>>> albums.
>>
>>> Wisecrack is a matter of intent, so your claim is definitive. It is,
>>> however, a *wrong* answer.
>>
>>> Color photos printed that way are good for 50 years or so.
>>
>> Colour prints can fade badly, but Kodak reckon that Endura paper is
>> good for 200 years in dark conditions.

> So it's as good as the best inkjet materials, finally.

Yes, it looks that way. However,
http/www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_11-10-04.html#9 says "Kodak
use of non-standard methods for predicting image life of
digitally-printed photographs enables them to claim a life that is 15
times greater ..." However, that is the test for light fading, which
is irrelevant here. So, a pinch of salt is required.

> And it's not a product you're likely to find snapshots printed on,
> either.

Good point: no-one locally seems to offer prints on the stuff. I've
got an Endura colour evaluation target here, and it really is very
nice indeed.

>> Anyway, he must have been talking about B&W, not colour, because
>> AFAIK colour prints aren't silver halide -- they're dye prints.
>> From that POV he was surely right, but do OFOTO do silver halide
>> prints at all?

> That was my immediate thought; but when I dug up the latest Wilhelm
> report on minilab papers, they described them as 'silver halide'. I
> guess that's actually correct, they do use silver halide as the
> photo-sensitive agent, it's just that in chromagenic color materials
> the silver is all bleached out in the processing, and the actual
> image is dyes; which is rather different from conventional B&W
> materials.

Oh, right, that's weird. It seems strange to describe such prints as
silver halide when there's no silver image, but if it's standard usage
I won't argue.

Andrew.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de>,
"A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote:

> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
> two generations?? Any suggestion ??

The general procedure that agencies such as broadcast networks who
archive their material is that they back up to the latest and greatest
media available. Then after the latest and greatest media is obsolete,
they move to the next latest and greatest media and they keep equipment
and information around to read the older stuff and slowly copy
previously archived data to the latest and greatest media.

Right now, I would say that dual layer DVD is the latest and greatest
archival media for the typical consumer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 10:58:37 -0500, Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net>
wrote:

>In article <423D1902.202B8735@t-online.de>,
> "A.F. Hobbacher" <hobbacher@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> What is the best way to store digital pictures for long time, say one or
>> two generations?? Any suggestion ??
>
>The general procedure that agencies such as broadcast networks who
>archive their material is that they back up to the latest and greatest
>media available. Then after the latest and greatest media is obsolete,
>they move to the next latest and greatest media and they keep equipment
>and information around to read the older stuff and slowly copy
>previously archived data to the latest and greatest media.
>
>Right now, I would say that dual layer DVD is the latest and greatest
>archival media for the typical consumer.

Single layer media costs under $.50.
Dual layer media costs about $17.
Just because something is newer doesn't make it better suited to do a
particular job.
To me, $1 beats $17 any day for storing photo files.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For digital preservation -- www.slidescanning.com