-
Will old formats Apple in the future?
-
[Clint Wardlow] “The point I am making is that archiving for future generations may disappear. Do you want everything you have ever worked on to simply vanish? Is all your hard work that disposable?
Like I pointed out earlier, if you find a box of 50-year-old negatives and 8mm films in a drawer, you can still use them to make prints or show the movies.
In fifty years if someone finds your disc are they going to be able to do anything with it?
Yes, I would like an archiving format that lasts past the current generation. I mean we can still look at a 1,000-year-old painting or read a book that was printed 500 years ago.”
Sure not, but archiving is not about putting something some where and forget it till somebody will discover it.
Archiving need is people to take care.
if all these books, movies or painting has survived, is because there are been always people paying attention.
Archiving doesn’t just cost money and means, but time and dedication.
I archive in HDs and BR disks (no the SONY disks that needs expensive hardware) till I find something better and affordable.
I know that if I wan’t that my little archive survive, is not just about to finding the best format or media, but finding somebody interested in keeping it.
rafael -
[Jeremy Garchow] “The art that has survived has been lovingly cared for and stored, and perhaps a bit of luck. Think of all the art that didn’t make it. It was unlucky, or put in a place that wasn’t conducive to long term storage. A lot of great art pieces have been professionally restored as well.”
Actually this is only true to a certain extent. Read about Vivian Maier, an “amateur” photographer whose negatives were discovered after her death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier
If she were a photographer living today, using digital technology, would someone in the future be able to publish and appraise her work if they came upon it stored on a thumb drive.
Historians are always searching for artifacts to dig up, art, or bits of manuscripts, broken pottery, clay tablets and such like. Maybe it is just the historian in me (I was a history minor in college), but it seems we may be the first generation that makes such things inaccessible for future people. That the culture of our time may be wrapped up so tightly in a case of technology that it will be uncrackable for future generations. I hope not.
[Jeremy Garchow] “And frankly, yes, most of the work I do is seen for a limited time and disappears. It is not deserving of lasting 1,000 years.”
I’m not so sure that is true. Even the most banal corporate video (not to say you make banal corporate videos) could provide future historians with valuable information about the way we lived.
But as I said before, I am just waxing philosophical. Maybe the FCPX board is not the place for it.
-
[Rafael Amador] “Sure not, but archiving is not about putting something some where and forget it till somebody will discover it.
Archiving need is people to take care.
if all these books, movies or painting has survived, is because there are been always people paying attention.
Archiving doesn’t just cost money and means, but time and dedication.
I archive in HDs and BR disks (no the SONY disks that needs expensive hardware) till I find something better and affordable.
I know that if I wan’t that my little archive survive, is not just about to finding the best format or media, but finding somebody interested in keeping it.
rafael”Things aren’t always preserved because they are meticulously cared for. They are discovered centuries after they were written. Read about the Nag Hammadi Library.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi
If they had been written today, outlawed and stored on a thumb drive, would someone digging them up 1,500 years from now be able to do a thing with them? (To be honest, even if they were written on today’s acid-based papers the probably still would,’t survive the centuries.)
But once again this is just me being philosophical and really has little to do with FCPX
-
[Rafael Amador] “If you would have been forced to work -long time- with plain DV capturing through FW and monitoring in a TV, probably you would have learn how polish that crap in in a FC time line and you wouldn’t be saying with that superiority “DV is DV”.”
DV isn’t “poop,” but DV is still DV, and not Digibeta, much less HD. I worked with it extensively in the past. And yes you can improve it very slightly in post (or if your I/O box has the same kinds of chroma filtering and line interpolation, etc.). But as I found out repeatedly, most consumers don’t notice the difference that a post-professional can. So, it may not be polishing a turd, but it is pretty irrelevant in the real world of actual viewer perception.
-
[Clint Wardlow] “Actually this is only true to a certain extent. Read about Vivian Maier, an “amateur” photographer whose negatives were discovered after her death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier“
Yeah, but her work is “only” 60 years old at the most. I thought we are talking 1,000 years.
While a lot has changed in 60 years, you can still buy film developing tools. How long will that last? Not too much longer in the grand scheme of history. I believe we are standing in the middle of great change. History will look back on this time as they did the Industrial Revolution, and as they would when man discovered fire if recorded history went back that far. The world is changing every single day because of technology, same as it always has.
[Clint Wardlow] “If she were a photographer living today, using digital technology, would someone in the future be able to publish and appraise her work if they came upon it stored on a thumb drive.”
Maybe, maybe not. History will tell us. If the data is there (in “analog” terms, if the negs are still good) it might be able to be extracted. Who knows. We’ll be dead.
[Clint Wardlow] “e it is just the historian in me (I was a history minor in college), but it seems we may be the first generation that makes such things inaccessible for future people.”
I think we should put this in context a bit. When Vivian Maier took pictures, was she thinking “I am using this because film will be around for at least 200 more years!” or do you think she was simply using the technology of her time? What were her options? Did she have other recording options?
If you want something to last, you have to make it last. That means taking care of it, and passing it down to someone who will take care of it, including repair it if need be. It’s the same with digital technology today.
JPEGs have been around since 1990ish, making them 20ish years old. Do you think that are going to go anywhere soon?
As far as Vivian Maeir’s work being found, this is what I was referring to about a bit of luck. Check it out: “Maloof bought 30,000 prints and negatives from an auction house that had acquired the photographs from a storage locker that had been sold off when Maier was no longer able to pay her fees. After purchasing the first collection of Maier photographs in 2007, Maloof acquired more from another buyer at the same auction.”
So her material was fortunately stored in a dark, relatively climate friendly location. Think if those prints would have been out in the sun, or got water on them, or buried in someone’s backyard. Because they weren’t exposed to any elements except time and perhaps air, they survived.
Technology will have the chance to survive if kept in such conditions. the more ubiquitous, probably the better chance of survival. Specialization will probably have less chance of survival.
[Clint Wardlow] “I’m not so sure that is true. Even the most banal corporate video (not to say you make banal corporate videos) could provide future historians with valuable information about the way we lived.”
I hear you, and yes, I will be the first to tell you that I do make some banal corporate videos, among other things. I agree with you that anything, given the distance of history, will provide information. There is no way to currently historically value anything that I do. Earlier this year, we shot some footage for a local sports team that had to do with driving around the city and shooting. In 100 years from now, even 50 years from now, think of the information one might be able to get from that. I am sure during the Renaissance, there were many artists, we only know about a select “few”. I am sure there was work that simply did not survive, or was very rare, or no one card about it at the time. The stuff that survived was because someone cared for it, and a bit of luck.
[Clint Wardlow] “But as I said before, I am just waxing philosophical. Maybe the FCPX board is not the place for it.”
It’s nice to change up the pace instead of talking about “I hate tracklessness and magnets!”. I also think it’s very relevant, so good on ya.
-
[James Culbertson] “DV isn’t “poop,””
Challenge!
I’m kidding. Seriously, I’m kidding.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “While a lot has changed in 60 years, you can still buy film developing tools. How long will that last? Not too much longer in the grand scheme of history. I believe we are standing in the middle of great change.”
Actually creating your own photo chemicals or light sensitive paper is very doable (I have a friend who creates his own emulsion for printing from plates he shoots with his Graflex). Using the negative itself is pretty much a very basic process. All you really need is a dark room, something to shine light through the negative and onto coated paper, and the chemicals to process it. I’m sure an enterprising type could probably construct a rudimentary enlarger (although with really large format negatives all you need is something to press the negative between the paper and light source.
Film is a little more problematic. Years ago I purchased a bunch of 16mm projectors and films from my local high school which was switching to video for very little cash (the films were a goldmine…including an anti-drug movie starring Sonny Bono!) I currently use most of the projectors as parts to keep two of the projectors in running condition. However, I think it would be nigh unto impossible for almost anyone but the most skilled shade-tree engineer to construct a working film projector.
Still, someone with a very rudimentary skill set in mechanics can keep such things up and running if they can get their hands on the parts (at least for now).
With digital media, no mater your skill set, creating the media and hardware you need to run such media is almost an impossibility without lots of support. Of course this could change. Maybe some future artists will specialize in building the hardware and working in outdated digital media just the same way modern artists work with large plate cameras and wet collodian film processing.
-
[Clint Wardlow] “With digital media, no mater your skill set, creating the media and hardware you need to run such media is almost an impossibility without lots of support. Of course this could change. Maybe some future artists will specialize in building the hardware and working in outdated digital media just the same way modern artists work with large plate cameras and wet collodian film processing.”
I whole heartedly agree. The talent will shift from a more mechanical working background to digital mechanics. You will need someone to reverse engineer the encode/decode, or perhaps software will be smart enough to do it for us. With hardware, it will be a different story, but who knows, maybe in the future making your own computer boards/transistors will be easier than today wile scrounging up spare parts from the graveyard.
-
Nah, this thread is t’totally practical.
And for anyone interested in archiving their work in a near permanent state, I have a perfectly functioning WIRE RECORDER on my shelf that plays back the audio spools recorded 30 years before I was born.
(just don’t come over with a pocket full of magnets, OK?)
I bet the shelf life of DVDs is going to be at least that good.
Physical tape based stuff, even digital data tapes – I’m not so sure of.
I had a fling with DC-2000 cart storage in the 1990s that left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth.
FWIW
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] ”
I bet the shelf life of DVDs is going to be at least that good.”Except a small percentage of my DVD-R archive is beginning to fail after less than 10 years. So, while some DVDs may last that long if you are lucky, I would definitely recommend redundancy, and even then assume you will lose a certain random percentage of your content.
Fortunately, I have most of this content on HD’s which I redundantly back up to other HDs.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up