 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006CDs and DVDs for archival of images.
Dear Members: I am about to archive images to optical media and in light of recent debates surrounding the issue of CDs x DVDs in terms of reliability I decided to do some research first before choosing the media for the job. Although I've done some basic research on the internet it is hard to know what sites provide reliable and trustworthy information that can be fully trusted. Do any of you have information to share on the benefits of using CDs and DVDs as long term storage media ? Which one is the best at this time ? I understand CDs are more "universal" and the data is not quite as compressed, but since DVDs are tempting due to their much greater storage capacity in the same physical space, I would like to know how reliable they are (more error prone than CDs ?) and how long they are expected to last compared to CDs. Do you have information on the differences between the two media ? Would you suggest any specific web site that offers detailed and reliable informaition on the subject ? Thank you in advance for your help, Joseph Chamberlain > Dear Members: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you suggest any specific web site that offers detailed and reliable > informaition on the subject ? Take a look here: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/011006-ibm-storage.html I use DLTs for backup...  SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/Foto/ > > Dear Members: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I use DLTs for backup... Following two DLT drive failures and one tape failure in 3 years I now use Sony AIT tape drives for backup [1]. Personally whatever you are doing I'd keep two copies, if you don't want to go to the expense of tape storage, I'd keep everything on at least one HD, with a DVD backup to boot, therefore hopefully if one fails you've still got the other to fall back on. The trick is to ensure that you keep a check on both [2]. [1] I know propietary and other things say use DLT or something but they run a hell of a lot quieter, faster, and so far have been a hell of a lot more reliable. And they were cheaper to boot. [2] I say this I keep warning a client against archiving to tape, and then deleting the originals from HD. This is despite them having plenty of room free nowadays and the cheap price of HDs. They've already had one tape fail (taking the drive with it) [3], but that was a current backup tape. Just hope non of the archive tapes ever fail on the day one of them is needed....... [3] Which also meant that because they had to be able to get at the archives they had to go DDS again and not upgrade the tape drive :-/ SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. >> Dear Members: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I use DLTs for backup... Oh my here's that infamous article again. How much you want to bet IBM their doctor associate have a new storage media on the horizon and this 2-5 year claim is just a means to discredit the use of CD/DVD and to position the new media as the archival panacea. Fact, all media has it's failure point. That failure rate increases if the media isn't handled properly regardless if it's CD/DVD, Hard Drive, or the most highly acclaimed TAPE. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" >Dear Members: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [snip] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has a site on the "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs". It has a link to "Special Publication 500-252, October 2003", a pdf titled "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs -- A Guide for Librarians and Archivists". This 50 page report has chapters on ensuring that your digital content remains available: disc structure, longevity, conditions that affect the media and cleaning. With proper handling of the media, this report is optimistic. The site is at: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/index.html >>Dear Members: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The site is at: > http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/index.html In addition, although I don't have the link, the US Library of Congress also has guidelines posted for the use of CD/DVD media and I can speak from first hand knowledge of the LoC's use of CD's for long term storage of their current image library. Search the LoC website and I'm sure you'll find the information. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" Today Robert R Kircher, Jr. commented courteously on the subject at hand >> The site is at: >> http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/index.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Search the LoC website and I'm sure you'll find the > information. The Library of Congress and the National Archives have billions of /your/ dollars to develop and maintain the very best in preservation. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that it takes them 50 pages to say what I can in one sentence - "don't touch the media and keep it in a cool, dry place". Big deal! SignatureATM, aka Jerry >Today Robert R Kircher, Jr. commented courteously on the >subject at hand [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >them 50 pages to say what I can in one sentence - "don't touch >the media and keep it in a cool, dry place". Big deal! No, they don't always know the best in preservation. You should read the book _Double Fold_ about the disaster they brought on the historical community by microfilming and then destroying old news papers. Both the Library of Congress and National Archives while good are not always the last word in preservation. http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/27/baker/ ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ Today John A. Stovall commented courteously on the subject at hand >>The Library of Congress and the National Archives have >>billions of /your/ dollars to develop and maintain the very [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/27/baker/ > ********************************************************** That was exactly my (sarcastic) point, John! They spend all the money you and I will give them but don't have a clue what they're, except to write 50 pages of drivel. It's like the classic oxymorons like "military intelligence" and "postal service". Maybe we should add "Libary of Congress preservation". It's like what the National Archives have spent so far, with no end in sight, to preserve the Star Spangled Banner flag. Somebody should have thought about history 100 years ago when they literally let people cut a piece of the flag out for souveniers! Nobody intelligent, and I mean nobody, would /ever/ destroy the originals of /anything/ after microfilming! Renting space at a Bekins warehouse someplace (you know, where the nuclear waste goes) is money well-spent compared to what their problem is now - how the hell can they scan these newspapers to digital, any format? The originals are gone. Save a fire or other natural disaster, at least I still have my slides and old snapshots if my digital media completely goes belly up. SignatureATM, aka Jerry Today Bruce Uttley commented courteously on the subject at hand >>I am about to archive images to optical media and in light >>of recent debates surrounding the issue of CDs x DVDs in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The site is at: > http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/carefordisc/index.html IMHO, the only real alternative any of us have is to follow the technology and continually update our backups as new, proven stuff comes along. How many of us still have 8" or 5.25" or 3.5" disks we can't read anymore for any of a hundred reasons? Ditto for CD-R/RW and DVD-R/RW. They work fine today, and will for years to come if cared for properly. And, if you use the IT "grandfathering" method of keeping at least 3 sets, and rotating the oldest out as the newest comes in. It has also been debated here what the best format is for preserving graphics long-term. It certainly is /not/ PSD or pspimage! If, for no other reason, Adobe or Corel might be out-of-business when you try to retrieve your irreplaceable images. Ditto, IMHO, for RAW/NEF. What do you do if Canon, Nikon, Adobe, whomever stops supporting your incantation? Again, all of this is fine for today, as are TIFF, PNG, JPEG, and others. Today, we have Macs and Windoze FAT, FAT32, and NTFS. Who knows what there will be in 5, 10, 100 years? But, to come back to earth, who among us doesn't have boxes and boxes of old snap shots and 35mm slides, that they've taken or they rescued from a relative's house? Me? I've got 8,000+ slides, and several thousand unnamed old family B&Ws alone. My daughter says that if I don't name this stuff, she's going to throw them away after I'm dead. And, I say - "so what?". I started with floppies, went to Zip Disks, then CD-R, now DVD-R. When the next better mouse trap comes along, I'll move along. And, these are just the musings of a fool, YMMD. <grin> BTW, I use UDF most of the time for my optical media to get 115 character file names, up from the 64 allowed by Joliet. But, when I got my new Windoze XP Pro SP2 box last October, the Windoze device driver crashes almost all the time upon loading or attempting to read UDF-formatted CDs or DVDs. And, while not as serious, SP2 also truncates the 32-char UDF volume names to 15. I /know/ this problem exists, I can Google for it and two of my most knowledgeable computer guru friends can verify it. UDF works fine on Win 98, 2000, NT, ME, and XP through SP1. But, Bill the Gates broke something either in the base SP2 code - probably for his bullshit non-security - or he broke it in one of the hundreds of "critical updates" since. Who knows? All I know is that the MS KB has no-thing to say about it, and the many MVPs on Usenet claim the problem doesn't exist. But, when I Google, I can find people just like me, wandering the desert looking for help. Anybody on this NG know what I'm talking about? Better still, do you know how to fix it? I have to keep my old SP1 box until/unless I find a cure and/or continually buy more and more external HDs, and hope /they/ will read in 20 years! SignatureATM, aka Jerry > the technology and continually update our backups as new, > proven stuff comes along. How many of us still have 8" or > 5.25" or 3.5" disks we can't read anymore for any of a hundred > reasons? There are only two reasons I have ever failed to get information off of old archives: failure of the physical media, or a proprietary, undocumented data format. Guard against those two things, and you have storage for as long as anyone cares about the data -- practically by definition. > It has also been debated here what the best format is for > preserving graphics long-term. It certainly is /not/ PSD or > pspimage! If, for no other reason, Adobe or Corel might be > out-of-business when you try to retrieve your irreplaceable > images. Ditto, IMHO, for RAW/NEF. What do you do if Canon, > Nikon, Adobe, whomever stops supporting your incantation? Well, on the Canon side, I'd use UFRaw, which is Free Software, and as such will be around much longer than I am. Even if it isn't, the documentation on the CR2 format will still be around, and someone could pretty easily rewrite it. The Nikon encrypted white balance may be a problem, but I haven't kept up with reports on how to work around it. > Again, all of this is fine for today, as are TIFF, PNG, JPEG, > and others. Today, we have Macs and Windoze FAT, FAT32, and > NTFS. Who knows what there will be in 5, 10, 100 years? If there are still people in a hundred years that care about retrieving old data, then they'll have preserved the documentation on all of the old open data formats. If society has degenerated to the point where this information has been lost, forget about retrieving your images and worry about whether you have enough food to last you through the winter. Proprietary/undocumented formats may get you into trouble, but I seem to recall that PSD is actually well documented (I haven't personally checked on this, but it was the impression I got), so it may be safe as well. Certainly, there are non-Adobe programs that read and write PSD files. I'm certainly not opposed to moving to the next available physical storage format when it becomes available, just to get around media failure and information density issues (if I had to keep all of my current data on floppies, I'd have lined every wall with shelves and had no room left), but if you're going to trust the archivability stats on a CD, then I wouldn't worry about not being able to find readers if the storage format was open to begin with. > But, when I got my new Windoze XP Pro SP2 box last October, > the Windoze device driver crashes almost all the time upon > loading or attempting to read UDF-formatted CDs or DVDs. And, > while not as serious, SP2 also truncates the 32-char UDF > volume names to 15. [...] > Anybody on this NG know what I'm talking about? Better still, > do you know how to fix it? I have to keep my old SP1 box > until/unless I find a cure and/or continually buy more and > more external HDs, and hope /they/ will read in 20 years! I've never seen this problem, unfortunately. The only problems I've ever had from the Windows side are the CD driver locking up completely and refusing access to the drive, or refusing to write a disc with asian characters in the filenames. I would suggest copying the data to a hard drive on the SP1 machine, moving it over to the SP2 machine, and then burning a fresh UDF disk from there to see if you get something that works. It's possible that SP1 was building slightly defective disks, for instance. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. Today Zed Pobre commented courteously on the subject at hand >> the technology and continually update our backups as new, >> proven stuff comes along. How many of us still have 8" or [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > see if you get something that works. It's possible that > SP1 was building slightly defective disks, for instance. That's entirely true, Zed. I would add, though, that one cannot prove a negative hypothesis by citing examples. All it takes is /one/ exception to disprove your thesis. For example, I have graphics made originally by Turbo Pascal under DOS 4.0 that are now irretrievable since I can't get it to run on XP SP2. Someday, BMP, for example, may no longer be supported by M$. Ditto for my HIRES graphics created with a graphics tablet on my old Apple //e. Fortunately, I don't care about that any more, but if I did, it'd be a tough roe to hoe to find a converter. And, to your point about proprietary formats, that's exactly why one shouldn't trust their only copy of something important to any graphics editor, such as PS CS or PSP or even the RAW converter that came with your camera. Should whatever created the files somehow now install on Bill the Gates better mousetrap, and the developer can't or won't provide an upgrade path, you are sh.t outta luck. As to Windoze locking up, that's a good reason to create more than one copy, preferably in a different format. It's like the UDF crashes I'm getting right now in SP2. Maybe I'll find a fix, and maybe I won't. At least, not for a long time. I'm OK until my SP1 box dies, I suppose. Or, I can throw money at the problem a different way and buy more and more external HDs. Or, I could create a cross-reference between my very long file names to ones that fit Joliet, and re-burn my CDs and DVDs. That's a lot of "or's", so I'm still searching for a way out of the woods on UDF. SignatureATM, aka Jerry > That's entirely true, Zed. I would add, though, that one > cannot prove a negative hypothesis by citing examples. All it > takes is /one/ exception to disprove your thesis. For example, > I have graphics made originally by Turbo Pascal under DOS 4.0 > that are now irretrievable since I can't get it to run on XP > SP2. I think you missed the point I was trying to make; I'm noting simply that by sticking to open, documented formats this problem is available. The TP graphics are most likely a proprietary, undocumented format, so you're out of luck, but that's not something that generalizes out to all formats. It's by knowing the distinction that you can make good decisions about what formats are safe for archival. > Someday, BMP, for example, may no longer be supported by > M$. This wouldn't matter. BMPs are just simple bitmaps with a known, well-documented format. They'll remain convertable pretty much indefinitely, whether or not MS supports them. You may have to go to a Free Software solution in that case, but they'll remain convertable. The source code to "convert" (which handles them today), for instance, isn't going to go away, though you may end up having to install either a Unix-like OS or a Unix enivronment such as Cygwin. > Ditto for my HIRES graphics created with a graphics tablet > on my old Apple //e. Fortunately, I don't care about that any > more, but if I did, it'd be a tough roe to hoe to find a > converter. Not familiar with that format. There are a bunch of old Apple II fans that made various emulators and reverse-engineered most of the old formats, so I suspect you'd find those easier to handle than you might think. > And, to your point about proprietary formats, that's exactly > why one shouldn't trust their only copy of something important > to any graphics editor, such as PS CS or PSP or even the RAW > converter that came with your camera. ... correct, but you're still missing the point that some of those formats are *documented*, so you aren't relying on that specific piece of software. I'll be able to read the CR2s from my Canon pretty much indefinitely because the format is well documented and there is already Free Software available to handle it. Even if that software were to go unmaintained for so long that it stopped running on every OS in use, the source code would be available and thus would be a fairly simple matter to fix. Even if that were infeasible, the documentation of the format would likely be around, making it fairly simple to rewrite. > It's like the UDF crashes I'm getting right now in SP2. Maybe > I'll find a fix, and maybe I won't. At least, not for a long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > CDs and DVDs. That's a lot of "or's", so I'm still searching > for a way out of the woods on UDF. Another possibility is to set up a file server running Linux, and use its UDF support to read the disc and make the contents available over a local network. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. Today Zed Pobre commented courteously on the subject at hand >> That's entirely true, Zed. I would add, though, that one >> cannot prove a negative hypothesis by citing examples. All [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Linux, and use its UDF support to read the disc and make > the contents available over a local network. Zed, we really do agree, just from differing viewpoints. When I wore the clothes of a younger man, I used to enjoy graphics programming and could do format conversion to a limited extent when they were documented. These days, if I can't get it through shareware or commercial, it don't help me. But, we're basically arguing about what will happen when the sun burns out and everybody freezes to death. You and I will be dead then, and we'll be dead before TIFF and JPEG die, and likely dead before any reasonable backup media will overtake optical. Thanks for sharing your views and your information. SignatureATM, aka Jerry > Today Bruce Uttley commented courteously on the subject at > hand [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > IT "grandfathering" method of keeping at least 3 sets, and > rotating the oldest out as the newest comes in. Wow, you are a clone of Mark Conrad from c.s.m.s. From here on to a bunch of bizarre tangents. I'm not going to rely on CD-R because I've had too many failures even with perfect handling. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > IMHO, the only real alternative any of us have is to follow > the technology and continually update our backups as new, > proven stuff comes along. How many of us still have 8" or > 5.25" or 3.5" disks we can't read anymore for any of a hundred > reasons? Hopefully it isn't because we got rid of the drives that would read it without transferring the data to a format we could still read. That would be silly. > It has also been debated here what the best format is for > preserving graphics long-term. It certainly is /not/ PSD or > pspimage! If, for no other reason, Adobe or Corel might be > out-of-business when you try to retrieve your irreplaceable > images. Ditto, IMHO, for RAW/NEF. What do you do if Canon, > Nikon, Adobe, whomever stops supporting your incantation? You get your 2006 raw converter software off the backup disk you stored it on. SignatureApteryx >> It has also been debated here what the best format is for >> preserving graphics long-term. It certainly is /not/ PSD or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You get your 2006 raw converter software off the backup disk you stored it > on. And then it won't install because the trusted-computing platform/DRM whatever we have then won't allow it. :-) -peter Today Apteryx commented courteously on the subject at hand >> IMHO, the only real alternative any of us have is to >> follow the technology and continually update our backups [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would read it without transferring the data to a format we > could still read. That would be silly. I still have a under dash 8-track player, lot of good it'd do, can't hook it up to a modern computer controlled radio without blowing out an $800 audio system. And, while I still have a 5.25" and 3.5" floppy drive on my old PC, it still doesn't matter. The software necessary to read the data won't run on XP, which was my point. >> It has also been debated here what the best format is for >> preserving graphics long-term. It certainly is /not/ PSD [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You get your 2006 raw converter software off the backup > disk you stored it on. SignatureATM, aka Jerry > I am about to archive images to optical media and in light of recent debates > surrounding the issue of CDs x DVDs in terms of reliability I decided to do > some research first before choosing the media for the job. I recently tried opening some files backed up to CD in 1999 and 2000. 100% failure. In some cases the disc couldn't be read, on others the file names would display but the files could not be opened. HP drive ; dics were things like Dyasan, Verbatim, TDK. All CD-Rs. Don't remember which exactly. So much for 100 year shelf life. Malcolm http://www.cdrfaq.org/ bought from J&R in NYC: TDK 10 pack(box no frills; w/jewel cases) $4 30 pack spindle(no jewel cases) 80min 700mb 52x - $6(0.20c each) Khypermedia 100 pack spindle 700mb 52x - $15(0.15c each) 50 pack spindle - $7(0.14c each) I did get data read error on a couple of pics when viewing on a DVD player. The names came up, but not the pics. On the computer, never had this problem. Joseph, Point your browser at ... http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/news/849 Cheers, Colin Color film and color prints are made with organic dyes. Burnable CD and DVD are made with organic dyes to encode the 1s and 0s. Kodak has a list of things on a web site (simply do a Google search) which are antagonistic to organic dyes, like PVC and high acid content paper and wood! If you have to store color film and prints in the right storage container, and you have to keep it out of the light to prevent fading, it makes sense that you have to protect burnable CD and DVD in exactly the same way to prolong the life. Some can fail in a few years, others will last long time. Your Mileage May Vary. I have a software CD that is about 3 years old, with Photoshop which was bundled with some hardware I purchased. It was stored exactly like all my other software, in a dark place, in the original sleeve, and about a week ago it consistently failed when I tried to reload the software onto my PC...I had a second copy and that worked just fine! Someone else mentioned that they had a data DVD only a few years old also go bad on them! So DVD is nowhere near as archival as a lot of people think. And re-writable are worse than write-once media in their susceptibility to data read problems. Oh, forgot to mention that there are three classes of organic dyes used in recordable DVD and CD. ONE of them is more archival than the others. One clue is a gold color, but beware that some disks are painted gold and do not use this dye! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.