Keep in mind that HDRebel88 is only 19, wet behind the ears and sees a future of butterfiles, lillies and jetpacks for everybody. When you create this wonder recorder - be sure to release ONE FORMAT VERSION and not 15 flavours.

Seriously... mediums are going to continue to change and adapt over the numerous years - film (to echo here) is the only medium that has not evolved (because it does not have to). Some can't see the use of 'film grain' because of how it looks... obviously film grain must be bad because of the creation of all those tools and plug-ins (davinci 2k or filmlook, etc..). Why is it so many people WANT their digital video to look like film.....? Because it adds something to it that the digital process does not.

Analogy of CD vs Vinyl - CD great recordings, crips, clean.. but they lack any 'feeling'. Not even a transferred vinyl to CD can give a CD the warmth of a vinyl recording. Even today, most self-respecting DJs (not radio) work with vinyl still - that is the only world where vinyl still is the prevalent medium.. why? the scratches sound horrible, i would not want that on my work - but why do hundreds/thousands of musical artists still press their work to vinyl?

End of the day, I go with the sumerians and stone tablets - difficult to degrade, still keeps clear images after thousands of years. I think with film/digital tape/disc/ssr it is still too early to tell on which medium will win the 'archive' wars. Heck, who knew Beta would become the industry strong hold it did over the VHS wars.

 The Academy of Motion Picture and Sciences is also looking at this. It is a huge issue moving forward. There are stories of HD captured material from 1999-2000 already having drop outs due to oxidization of the tape format. I have a feature still sitting on Panasonic Phase change optical discs from the mid 90's that I can no longer access. Cannot mount the drive to load to discs. I still have an original Avid/1 Media Composer at work that still boots up, but you know that will not last forever. Even finding 2" and 1" machines that still work is getting harder, much less people trained to use and maintain them is fading faster than any film format. For tape and file based formats, the maintenance of it up to date for archive is far more expensive. The academy released some numbers that showed a 10x $$ factor for digital source archive compared to film archive if I recall correctly.

Grain or no grain, I am always amazed to watch a film from 50 years ago on my HD channels and saying to myself - damn that looks good! Grain is almost a thing of the past - new stocks are amazing - and a little grain to the frame seems to add a little life to the image in my opinion. Many of the HD formats look a bit sterile without a lot of manipulation to the image in post. Grain reacts to the way light falls on the object at the time of capture which is different that trying to add it later - nothing you add in post looks as good if that is what you are after. And gain/noise doesn't compare.

But all of that is subjective when it comes to the look - certainly more efficient MPEG encoding can be derived from grainless sources - but like MP3 and other distribution formats, they really aren't mastering and archive formats.

Interesting topic - it's on many people's minds. especially those who own content.

Michael

Solopost:

When you create this wonder recorder - be sure to release ONE FORMAT VERSION and not 15 flavours.

Solopost, I could not agree with you more. For this whole idea to work THERE MUST BE ONE AND ONLY ONE universal worldwide standard. Period.

MichaelP:

Even finding 2" and 1" machines that still work is getting harder, much less people trained to use and maintain them is fading faster than any film format.

Michael, PM me and I'll give you contact info for someone who can easily help find this resource for you. There are several active legacy operations. I'd put his name and info here, but I think that would be against the rules.

rinzeschuurman:

 I'd put my money on ssd technology. (solid state disk or solid state memory if you will) No moving parts, less expensive compared to film in about 4 years, small, easier to store, if in the right kind of container fire, water and idiot proof.

 Exactly... that's what I'm talking about... SSD technology in a DVD-case sized case. And of course they'd be able to come in any size. Smallest say 30GB -- which you could do with current tech -- all the way upto over 25-30TB (which involves new tech.).

Andrew McCarrick:

... that's what I'm talking about... SSD technology in a DVD-case sized case. And of course they'd be able to come in any size. Smallest say 30GB -- which you could do with current tech -- all the way upto over 25-30TB (which involves new tech.).

Andrew, how would you propose to handle the long term storage durability and viability of this format?

 NASA ran into this problem when they discovered that data from the various early space programs was deteriorating. Their solution was to print the digital data on archival paper.

Solopost:

film (to echo here) is the only medium that has not evolved (because it does not have to).

I'm sure that Kodak would be interested to hear that!  Film stocks have changed formats, aspect ratios, chemistry, acutance, you name it.  Just try and find a projector or lab equipment to handle a 9.5mm centre perf film.

Solopost:

Some can't see the use of 'film grain' because of how it looks ... Why is it so many people WANT their digital video to look like film.....?

Because it's what they're used to.  Painters had real dificulty getting the art establishment to accept acrylic media as "serious" art, for exactly the same reason.

Solopost:

Analogy of CD vs Vinyl - CD great recordings, crips, clean.. but they lack any 'feeling'. Not even a transferred vinyl to CD can give a CD the warmth of a vinyl recording.

Well, skipping the validity or otherwise of arguing by analogy, this again is just an expression of your own preferences.  I've done blind testing of CD and LP media and the audience that I tested - including an audio engineer who prided himself on his "golden ears" - got it right almost exactly 50% of the time.  It wasn't a large sample, but I believe that it is indicative.

Solopost:

Even today, most self-respecting DJs (not radio) work with vinyl still

But that has absolutely nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with control.  Yes, you can buy digital tools that are supposed to be the direct equivalent, but they really aren't - yet.

Solopost:

End of the day, I go with the sumerians and stone tablets - difficult to degrade, still keeps clear images after thousands of years.

Neither film nor vinyl, based as they are on long-chain organic molecules, are likely to last thousands or even hundreds of years.  Have you ever opened a cupboard containing old LPs and smelled that sharp acidic smell?  It's hydrochloric acid produced by the breakdown of the vinyl from which the LPs were pressed.

With film as with tape it tends to be the binder chemistry and dyes that give up first, but it also degrades significantly over time.  As for digital media?  Well, solid state storage is liable to gamma ray and EMP damage, and any magnetic medium is liable to the random reversal of magnetic domains that happens over time.

So you want archival storage?  Well, your conclusion is right - work out a way of carving your images in stone.  It outlasts even clay.  But it doesn't last forever.  Nothing does.

 OK, well let's narrow the scope a little bit. Let's postulate that long term archiving will involve not one permanent "forever" format, but something that will last for at least 50 years when the next cycle in the relay race to the future would be engaged, and a new format developed, and so on.

What would satisfy reliable storage and retrieval needs for the next 50 years?

 That certainly is one of the issues that needs to be considered - the amount of time and effort (equals money) it takes to turn over an archive to the "next format." Here is some idea of the amount of data for a single film that was written in a recent Hollywood Reporter article:

A movie posted in 2K uses nine to 10 terabytes of working storage, and Efilm president Joe Matza estimates that the final project is around 2.5TB, depending on length. He suggests that when that goes to 4K, filmmakers are looking at 25-30TB of working storage and 9-10TB for the final project.

Now in this case we are talking a single finished feature film. Not all its sources. The amount of footage being shot for television, news, etc. dwarfs the amount of films being shot and while the resolution is not the same, the sheer magnitude brings out the same issues. I was walking through the vault of ET and other shows, and just racks and racks and racks of beta SP, digi beta and God knows what else. They are just starting to looking to the digitization process as well as the database transition for those videos.

With and digital format drive, like the phase change optical discs which I still have - is the ability to mount them on an OS with the proper drivers, etc. The same might be said of solid state drives 10, 20 or more years from now... zip drive, floppy drives, etc. Fading....

Michael

 I liken the computer revolution to a runaway freight train. The train is barrelling down the track, we the users are hanging on to the car rails trying not to fall under the wheels, the throttle's wide open, no engineer in the cab, destination - unknown. We don't know where we're going but we're getting there in one hell of a hurry.

Larry Rubin:

 I liken the computer revolution to a runaway freight train

 "I'm sure that Kodak would be interested to hear that!  Film stocks have changed formats, aspect ratios, chemistry, acutance, you name it.  Just try and find a projector or lab equipment to handle a 9.5mm centre perf film."

That's just an argument for argument's sake. My point being that film, is film, is film. Yes the technology around it has evolved but what happens (chemical reaction to the film and the shutter opening and closing) is still the same. Jeez, can't someone make a comment without it being taken literally.

"Because it's what they're used to.  Painters had real dificulty getting the art establishment to accept acrylic media as "serious" art, for exactly the same reason."

But the digital 'film-makers' don't have that issue - the digital format was more than accepted as "serious". I don't think it's because they are used to seeing grain - it gives it life. Even in video when you need to create a longer empty shot from all you have, ever heard of "rock and roll".

"Well, skipping the validity or otherwise of arguing by analogy, this again is just an expression of your own preferences.  I've done blind testing of CD and LP media and the audience that I tested - including an audio engineer who prided himself on his "golden ears" - got it right almost exactly 50% of the time.  It wasn't a large sample, but I believe that it is indicative."

And what do you call; "Some can't see the use of 'film grain' because of how it looks ... Why is it so many people WANT their digital video to look like film.....?" - would that not be referred to 'an expression of preferences'?

And as for your "blind testing" - I guess the fact that vinyl actually records a larger pan of frequencies than CD makes no difference (depending on who you ask, I guess preference).

"But that has absolutely nothing to do with quality, and everything to do with control.  Yes, you can buy digital tools that are supposed to be the direct equivalent, but they really aren't - yet."

Again, if a DJ felt the 'quality' would improve the sound (which is one of the largest issues for a DJ) then CD would have taken over 100%... but it is yet to do that, not because of control - you can control a CD in a thousand more ways over vinyl - but because it simply sounds better.

"Have you ever opened a cupboard containing old LPs and smelled that sharp acidic smell?  It's hydrochloric acid produced by the breakdown of the vinyl from which the LPs were pressed."

1 - You don't keep vinyl in a cupboard. 2 - I have a large collection of vinyl (have done since 1992) which all play great and have not began to break down yet - all mixed dating too from the 1950's thru to the new millenium.

"Well, your conclusion is right - work out a way of carving your images in stone.  It outlasts even clay.  But it doesn't last forever.  Nothing does."

I don't think he conclusion is a 'forever' archive - it seems that wall scribings and paper seems, to date, the only one that has tested time (stored in the right conditions for paper, the wall scribings seem to have lived quite well open to the elements).

The archiving for a number of years has to be guaranteed - I agree with Larry's position - at least, then, scheduling a 'transfer' from old archive to updated is something that could be looked ahead.

In a wonderful, final addition, may I remind all that in 50 years we could all be dead (or tonight in my sleep). Also at this moment in my life - I only have a few pieces of work that I feel should be archived (as it could prove useful in 400 years when the Vatican approves or denies the events of Medjugorje). As for solving the worlds archiving of my old... erm, I mean the porn industries 70's collections... it will happen. Smarter individuals than I will work that one out - will it be ground breaking, probably not. But I am sure the rubes will be ooo and aahhing when it happens - and be sure to run out an buy the latest and greatest technology.

p.s. - love the passenger train and conductor play - that is the truth.

Solopost:

...may I remind all that in 50 years we could all be dead...

Precisely. That's the whole purpose of archiving - for material to outlive you and be avaiable to future generations when you're no longer around to provide and present it. I happen to have some heretofore completely unreleased Beatle's studio footage from the late 60's that I would like to see survive me. Right now, it resides on 3/4 inch. I don't want to touch the tape until I can find a legacy umatic tape cleaner/evaluator.

Larry, I've heard of restoration facilities "baking" old tapes by microwaving them.  This apparently minimises oxide shedding.  I don't have any more details than that, but a local company here apparently uses the technique.  If you wish I could try and get details for you.

 jwrl:

Yes, I'd like to get more details about that. I've never heard that theory.