NitrateVille.com

What do you do when the leading form of digital preservation has a lifespan of five years?


http://thedissolve.com/features/exposit ... vation-20/" target="_blank

I stopped reading closely after the sentence " One pro-digital archivist I spoke to mentioned overcoming the “mythopoetics and nostalgia of cinephilia,” and you don’t have to look far to find people conflating analog media with “the human touch.”" It's been my experience that people who can't express themselves any clearer than that haven't thought very clearly about the subject.

I am sure that everyone here is concerned about preservation of the movies we all love. One of the problems I see with the logic offered here is the implication that five years, precisely 15,768,000 seconds (add 86,400 seconds if there are two leap days included) after the sole digital artifact is created, it will vanish into nothingness like the fabulous one-hoss shay. In reality there are usually several copies and that "five year" figure is a sort of average or half-life effect. Nitrate can't wait, but sometimes it holds out anyway. In the meantime, my suggestion is to make as many copies in whatever medium one can afford. That's one of the reasons I've been so pleased with the Kickstarter efforts promoted here. I hope others will do similar things instead of just whining that someone should do something.

Please continue to post these. I hope to read some written in English.

Bob

boblipton wrote:I stopped reading closely after the sentence " One pro-digital archivist I spoke to mentioned overcoming the “mythopoetics and nostalgia of cinephilia,” and you don’t have to look far to find people conflating analog media with “the human touch.”" It's been my experience that people who can't express themselves any clearer than that haven't thought very clearly about the subject.

I am sure that everyone here is concerned about preservation of the movies we all love. One of the problems I see with the logic offered here is the implication that five years, precisely 15,768,000 seconds (add 86,400 seconds if there are two leap days included) after the sole digital artifact is created, it will vanish into nothingness like the fabulous one-hoss shay. In reality there are usually several copies and that "five year" figure is a sort of average or half-life effect. Nitrate can't wait, but sometimes it holds out anyway. In the meantime, my suggestion is to make as many copies in whatever medium one can afford. That's one of the reasons I've been so pleased with the Kickstarter efforts promoted here. I hope others will do similar things instead of just whining that someone should do something.

Please continue to post these. I hope to read some written in English.

Bob

Actually, I thought the sentence you quoted was quite eloquent and addresses an important issue. In any event, you should have continued reading, Bob. Rather than wringing his hands over the 5 year migration issue, the author takes a rather balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of digital. He accurately points out that the real danger is the constant turnover in studio upper management and how cost cutting measures can impact the cycles of digital migration.

There are also several other interesting issues raised, including the disincentive on the part of both the archival community (who resist change) and the computer industry (who depend on planned obsolescence) to aggressively demand /develop media that has a longer lifespan. As far as the 5 year cycle is concerned, the article makes it clear that this cycle is by no means written in stone and it has several levels of safety factors built in to it. It can and will be adjusted as more lifespan data is developed.

It is one of the few articles I have read on this subject that recognizes that all the "crying wolf" over digital is counter-productive and that the oft-cited issues of digital are indeed solvable. Digital isn't going away, and if there was as much energy expended on making it better as there is whining over the change, all would benefit.

As a side note, I was recently searching for a post on the old alt.silent.movies newsgroup and I stumbled across one of the endless threads on film -vs digital from the late 1990s. It was fascinating...almost all of the concerns about digital raised then have been solved and a lot of the comments seem quaint and naive. My favorite was the guy that repeatedly claimed that "digital will never work as a replacement for film in movie theaters!"

A couple of posters actually exhibited some insight into the direction the industry would inevitably take, but most of them were just the same sort of blinders on / tunnel vision that we have today. Only the names have been changed. I suspect when we look back in 15 years, the issues raised in an article like this one will seem just as silly and naive as those raised in the late 90s seem now.

azjazzman wrote:

I suspect when we look back in 15 years, the issues raised in an article like this one will seem just as silly and naive as those raised in the late 90s seem now.

But what about the Death Panels?!!!

This makes me wonder, how are we preserving our own movie libraries? I assume that in addition to film, probably some VHS tapes, and whatever else, most of us have hundreds (if not thousands) of movies and shorts on DVDs. Many of these are probably burned DVDs as well. What should we be doing, if anything, to ensure that the libraries that we've worked so hard to keep at our fingertips stick around?

I have some friends that are transferring all of their titles to external hard drives, but these only have a ten year lifespan.

Maybe this is a discussion for elsewhere?

rodney4130 wrote:This makes me wonder, how are we preserving our own movie libraries? I assume that in addition to film, probably some VHS tapes, and whatever else, most of us have hundreds (if not thousands) of movies and shorts on DVDs. Many of these are probably burned DVDs as well. What should we be doing, if anything, to ensure that the libraries that we've worked so hard to keep at our fingertips stick around?

I have some friends that are transferring all of their titles to external hard drives, but these only have a ten year lifespan.

Maybe this is a discussion for elsewhere?

Pressed DVDs will last many decades if stored properly. They are quite stable, due to the aluminum reflective layer. DVD-Rs are a differently matter, as the dyes used can degrade over time. The quality of the dyes used by various manufacturers vary greatly, so there is no single answer here. Again, storage conditions are a significant variable.

However, it is possible to predict / anticipate degradation of burned DVDs through the use of a quality DVD drive and software that will determine the error rates on a specific disc. The best and safest way is to keep two copies of everything and periodically check error rates for signs of degradation. A disc that is going south can almost always be duplicated before it becomes unreadable. That way you are always protected.

VHS or any analog magnetic media degrades from the very moment it is recorded. Each successive play creates more degradation. Of course, the quality of the media itself is a big factor. Some of the metal based tapes are surprisingly durable, but they are fairly expensive and can only be used in high end recorders.

People seem to be amazed that some VHS tapes made 30 years ago will still play...but in most cases it will be in a degraded state and the likelihood that they will be playable at all in another 20 years is pretty small. Of course, you can copy the tapes, but each copy will have significantly degraded picture quality. WIth digital, the copy is a clone, identical to the original.

I have Beta video tapes that I recorded back in 1981 - they still play. The VHS ones were recorded later and when I played one of these a couple of years ago and it still played.

I always thought that DVD's like CD's were introduced as "indestructible". I suppose I have upwards of 3,000 DVD's and haven't had any problems with them - yet.

I am therefore now quite nervous. Will my collections last another ten years? (Probably the limit of my lifespan). Hopefully the answer is "yes".

azjazzman wrote:

boblipton wrote:I stopped reading closely after the sentence " One pro-digital archivist I spoke to mentioned overcoming the “mythopoetics and nostalgia of cinephilia,” and you don’t have to look far to find people conflating analog media with “the human touch.”" It's been my experience that people who can't express themselves any clearer than that haven't thought very clearly about the subject.

I am sure that everyone here is concerned about preservation of the movies we all love. One of the problems I see with the logic offered here is the implication that five years, precisely 15,768,000 seconds (add 86,400 seconds if there are two leap days included) after the sole digital artifact is created, it will vanish into nothingness like the fabulous one-hoss shay. In reality there are usually several copies and that "five year" figure is a sort of average or half-life effect. Nitrate can't wait, but sometimes it holds out anyway. In the meantime, my suggestion is to make as many copies in whatever medium one can afford. That's one of the reasons I've been so pleased with the Kickstarter efforts promoted here. I hope others will do similar things instead of just whining that someone should do something.

Please continue to post these. I hope to read some written in English.

Bob

Actually, I thought the sentence you quoted was quite eloquent and addresses an important issue. In any event, you should have continued reading, Bob. Rather than wringing his hands over the 5 year migration issue, the author takes a rather balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of digital. He accurately points out that the real danger is the constant turnover in studio upper management and how cost cutting measures can impact the cycles of digital migration.

There are also several other interesting issues raised, including the disincentive on the part of both the archival community (who resist change) and the computer industry (who depend on planned obsolescence) to aggressively demand /develop media that has a longer lifespan. As far as the 5 year cycle is concerned, the article makes it clear that this cycle is by no means written in stone and it has several levels of safety factors built in to it. It can and will be adjusted as more lifespan data is developed.

It is one of the few articles I have read on this subject that recognizes that all the "crying wolf" over digital is counter-productive and that the oft-cited issues of digital are indeed solvable. Digital isn't going away, and if there was as much energy expended on making it better as there is whining over the change, all would benefit.

As a side note, I was recently searching for a post on the old alt.silent.movies newsgroup and I stumbled across one of the endless threads on film -vs digital from the late 1990s. It was fascinating...almost all of the concerns about digital raised then have been solved and a lot of the comments seem quaint and naive. My favorite was the guy that repeatedly claimed that "digital will never work as a replacement for film in movie theaters!"

A couple of posters actually exhibited some insight into the direction the industry would inevitably take, but most of them were just the same sort of blinders on / tunnel vision that we have today. Only the names have been changed. I suspect when we look back in 15 years, the issues raised in an article like this one will seem just as silly and naive as those raised in the late 90s seem now.

And I think it is needlessly high-blown. The purpose of a factual article is to convey facts. This can best be done with easily understood words. Here's how I parsed the sentence (sentence repeated for the ease of any readers)

" One pro-digital archivist I spoke to mentioned overcoming the “mythopoetics and nostalgia of cinephilia,” and you don’t have to look far to find people conflating analog media with “the human touch.”"

I spoke with an un-named individual whom I am quoting without attribution. His opinion is unchallengeable because you don't know who he is and because I consider him a genius. This should be enough for you. He is in favor of digital archives. He said a lot of film buffs don't like this. He attributes it to the myth-making experience of film-going and the normal human dislike of change. He also said that digital seems technological and inhuman to film fans but film had "the human touch."

Bob

The best argument for digital archives is that it's easy to store stuff in many copies all over the place. So its survival is likely. The best argument against them is whether we'll be able to read them or not in 50 years. Or 25.

The advantage of analog is that as long as the medium survives, it's readable. If I were Pixar I'd be mothballing a really nice 35mm print of everything.

As someone who creates films that will, at least, have historical value in 100 years, I worry that in 100 years you'll be able to look at the old pictures I have of my great-grandparents, but not my own work.

I like paper prints myself, Mike. Acid-free paper.

Bob

The Library of Congress migrates its video collections using robots to operate the equipment!

David Shepard

At the moment, I am quite busy to transfer a lot of titles of my VHS collection to DVD. Many date back to the 1980ies and most of them run like new. If you have a machine that can select sound output to normal instead of Hifi the sound also is intact. There are rare exceptions.

The only time I transfer old VHS tapes is if they are "home movies" of family, friends, etc. OR titles not presently
available on DVD.

The analog video technology of VHS is far less than what DVDs are capable of, and usually a DVD copy of a VHS tape isn't up to the clarity of a professionally made DVD.

They are passable for viewing on small screen TVs, but for those who project on large screens, seldom comparable to new digital transfers.

Cerainly you do not transfer VHS recordings of movies where you now have a Blu Ray or good DVD. But you need to closely look at your recordings. I bought Sacha Guitry films as French DVDs, but still find stuff I taped decades ago useful if there are subtitles. The synchronized sound of a movie may be different (e.g. as I experienced with 'For Whom the Bell Tolls') and, not to forget, if the collection is big enough, the cost of 50 Cents compares nicely to 10 EURO for a new DVD. So I might transfer and replace later, if the opportunity comes...

I have got loads of VHS-C's that need transferring onto DVD-R... They date back to 1992, I've not watched them in years and don't even know if they still play, but I've got dozens of them!! They are all home movies of family Christmas's etc. They look like this:



I wonder how I can get them onto DVD-R ??

There are VHS adapters you can put a VHS-Compact in and it will
fit inside a regular VHS player. From there you can record it to
a DVD-R.

azjazzman wrote: People seem to be amazed that some VHS tapes made 30 years ago will still play...but in most cases it will be in a degraded state and the likelihood that they will be playable at all in another 20 years is pretty small.

You don't state why VHS might not be playable in "20 years", but it isn't due to deterioration of the magnetic media, it would be more likely due to the lack of any VHS playback equipment that's operational. There is no known end of life for magnetic media. The oldest magnetic tape extant, manufactured around 1935, is still playable.

I have VHS tapes that were recorded in 1978 (that's 36 years ago) that look as good as the day I recorded them. They were recorded on high quality tape, stored correctly, and only played a few times. Your mileage may vary.

Derek

David, you need a specially designed cassette to adapt the small VHS format to normal players - you put the small tape into such, put the special cassette into your VHS player, and the combine it with your DVD - Recorder. That is all.

For playback of VHS-C tapes, the best playback device would be the camcorder that made the original recording. If that camcorder is not available, then you need an adapter. As to the longevity of VHS tapes, there is no way to know if your old VHS tapes will play back well. When I was transferring many old VHS tapes I had to DVD-R using a DVD recorder, I had problems with quite a few tapes. There were tracking control problems, almost certainly because I used JVC recorders to record many of the VHS tapes. At least two VHS tapes had the tape snap off the spindle during high speed rewind. Some of my recordings on TDK High Fidelity VHS tapes had defective audio, only one track recorded. My cheap TDK HS tapes were rotten as a recording medium. If you used Fuji SHG tapes, you will have no problems with tape quality. And, of course, the VHS tape's 240 line resolution is not high definition.

Derek Gee wrote: You don't state why VHS might not be playable in "20 years", but it isn't due to deterioration of the magnetic media, it would be more likely due to the lack of any VHS playback equipment that's operational. There is no known end of life for magnetic media. The oldest magnetic tape extant, manufactured around 1935, is still playable.

I have VHS tapes that were recorded in 1978 (that's 36 years ago) that look as good as the day I recorded them. They were recorded on high quality tape, stored correctly, and only played a few times. Your mileage may vary.

Derek

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub54/2what_wrong.html

In 1999 the BBC here in England broadcast "Sunny Side Up" (1929), and I recorded in onto VHS tape, as at that time I was still using VHS tapes. I had not yet made the change over to DVD's, it was just before the DVD revolution. Anyway I got a FANTASTIC copy of "Sunny Side Up" on tape as the BBC only ever broadcast the best! I was so pleased. I stored it with my other tapes, in a dry drawer, away from any heat. Anyway about a year later, I went to play it, and the picture had ALL GONE!??! It was just 3 hours of static!!! I couldn't believe it!!! I was so p##### off.... I had to make do with the "Critics Choice" version on DVD-R a few years later, which is not very good at all! And to think I had a pristine copy of it on tape. Huh; so much for VHS!!!!

David Alp wrote:In 1999 the BBC here in England broadcast "Sunny Side Up" (1929), and I recorded in onto VHS tape, as at that time I was still using VHS tapes. I had not yet made the change over to DVD's, it was just before the DVD revolution. Anyway I got a FANTASTIC copy of "Sunny Side Up" on tape as the BBC only ever broadcast the best! I was so pleased. I stored it with my other tapes, in a dry drawer, away from any heat. Anyway about a year later, I went to play it, and the picture had ALL GONE!??! It was just 3 hours of static!!! I couldn't believe it!!! I was so p##### off.... I had to make do with the "Critics Choice" version on DVD-R a few years later, which is not very good at all! And to think I had a pristine copy of it on tape. Huh; so much for VHS!!!!

Well, if your tape was just static, with no picture whatsoever, it is likely that when you recorded it you either weren't tuned in to the channel correctly or had a bad input connection. What you have described isn't symptomatic of videotape degradation.

azjazzman wrote:

Derek Gee wrote: You don't state why VHS might not be playable in "20 years", but it isn't due to deterioration of the magnetic media, it would be more likely due to the lack of any VHS playback equipment that's operational. There is no known end of life for magnetic media. The oldest magnetic tape extant, manufactured around 1935, is still playable.

I have VHS tapes that were recorded in 1978 (that's 36 years ago) that look as good as the day I recorded them. They were recorded on high quality tape, stored correctly, and only played a few times. Your mileage may vary.

Derek

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub54/2what_wrong.html

Interesting, but not entirely correct. While it's true that storing your tapes in high humidity, high temperature environments will lead to a short lifespan for your videotape, trying to estimate lifespan based on accelerated aging tests is not entirely accurate. The real world data already proves Van Bogart's 1995 estimates wrong. My oldest VHS tapes should have expired six years ago, assuming 68 degree, 50% humidity storage conditions. The 1935 German magnetic tape should have expired 16 years ago in the best of storage conditions!

I first became aware of this via some fact sheets put out by the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA). To quote their publication:

"The notion of "end-of-life" (EOL) for magnetic tape may be irrelevant. After all, some of the oldest magnetic tapes known to exist - German Magnetophon audiotapes recorded in 1943 currently held in a private collection - are in excellent playing condition. Furthermore, how do you define EOL for tape when it can be treated by baking or drying and subsequently played over and over? Ampex engineers repeated this cycle with bad sticky-shed tapes many times over a three year period and the tapes were always playable." (AMIA Fact Sheet #5 - Estimating tape life)

(Note, I corrected the date of the oldest playable tape in my comments, as that tape was discovered after the fact sheet was published.)

http://www.amianet.org/sites/all/files/ ... eets_0.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Derek

Derek Gee wrote:

azjazzman wrote:

Derek Gee wrote: You don't state why VHS might not be playable in "20 years",

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub54/2what_wrong.html

Interesting, but not entirely correct. While it's true that storing your tapes in high humidity, high temperature environments will lead to a short lifespan for your videotape, trying to estimate lifespan based on accelerated aging tests is not entirely accurate. The real world data already proves Van Bogart's 1995 estimates wrong. My oldest VHS tapes should have expired six years ago, assuming 68 degree, 50% humidity storage conditions. The 1935 German magnetic tape should have expired 16 years ago in the best of storage conditions!

I first became aware of this via some fact sheets put out by the Association of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA). To quote their publication:

"The notion of "end-of-life" (EOL) for magnetic tape may be irrelevant. After all, some of the oldest magnetic tapes known to exist - German Magnetophon audiotapes recorded in 1943 currently held in a private collection - are in excellent playing condition. Furthermore, how do you define EOL for tape when it can be treated by baking or drying and subsequently played over and over? Ampex engineers repeated this cycle with bad sticky-shed tapes many times over a three year period and the tapes were always playable." (AMIA Fact Sheet #5 - Estimating tape life)

(Note, I corrected the date of the oldest playable tape in my comments, as that tape was discovered after the fact sheet was published.)

http://www.amianet.org/sites/all/files/ ... eets_0.pdf" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Derek

You'll note that the title of the article I linked was "What can go wrong with magnetic media". Obviously, the existence of individual tapes that still play after X number of years is no more definitive than all the anecdotal evidence of tapes that won't play.

"End of Life" is not a term I have used, so you are setting up a straw man here. The fact the some tapes can be rescued by baking doesn't in any way refute the original point I made...that magnetic media deteriorates right from the first use and the deterioration continues from that point forward. Just because your tape from 30+ years ago still plays doesn't mean it hasn't deteriorated and won't continue to do so.

There are too many variables that can and will impact how long the tape will remain playable, but particularly with helical scan recordings, the ultimate usable lifespan tends more towards shorter rather than longer.

Let’s review exactly what you wrote, shall we?

“VHS or any analog magnetic media degrades from the very moment it is recorded. Each successive play creates more degradation. Of course, the quality of the media itself is a big factor. Some of the metal based tapes are surprisingly durable, but they are fairly expensive and can only be used in high end recorders.”

This is all true, but the way you stated it in combination with the paragraph below…

“People seem to be amazed that some VHS tapes made 30 years ago will still play...but in most cases it will be in a degraded state and the likelihood that they will be playable at all in another 20 years is pretty small.”

…makes it seem like the degradation is a big problem, and it’s not. The tiny loss of signal can be measured with test equipment, but unless your videotape has 150+ plays on it you likely won’t notice much of anything except an occasional dropout. That kind of wear I’ve only personally seen in tapes played in daycare centers or kiosks at stores.

“Of course, you can copy the tapes, but each copy will have significantly degraded picture quality. With digital, the copy is a clone, identical to the original.”

And if I copy my analog tape to digital, the degradation halts. What’s your point? Who the heck is making analog dubs anymore?

You also wrote:
“You'll note that the title of the article I linked was "What can go wrong with magnetic media". Obviously, the existence of individual tapes that still play after X number of years is no more definitive than all the anecdotal evidence of tapes that won't play.”

The existence of tapes that play after X number of years is not merely anecdotal, they are data points, many thousands of data points. One of my friends has been transferring film and video for a living for 28 years, and has worked with tens of thousands of home videotapes over the years (sometimes a couple of thousand per month). He said he’s seen two or three tapes in 28 years that apparently deteriorated on their own. Overall, his experience is the same as mine; tapes very rarely “degrade” on their own and become unplayable. Most of the unplayable tapes are either due to mishandling that caused a mechanical failure of the shell or due to improper storage. He specifically mentioned storage of the tapes in the garage or attic of the house. That 1995 article you cited is based on accelerated aging tests that have not proven to be a reliable predictor of failure in the nearly 20 years since it was published.

Another quote from you:
“ "End of Life" is not a term I have used, so you are setting up a straw man here. ”

End of Life is the correct archival term, which *I* introduced to the discussion to indicate that magnetic tape isn’t like a carton of eggs in your fridge with an “expiration date”. More than one company has tried to sell their transfer services by pretending there is, and using that to pressure the public into transferring their videos. There are many good reasons to transfer your one-of-a-kind recordings to digital, but an expiration date isn’t one of them. I felt your comments were misleading, if not inaccurate in the second paragraph.

More from you:
“The fact the some tapes can be rescued by baking doesn't in any way refute the original point I made...that magnetic media deteriorates right from the first use and the deterioration continues from that point forward. Just because your tape from 30+ years ago still plays doesn't mean it hasn't deteriorated and won't continue to do so.”

My comments completely refute your point. The deterioration you refer to is only measurable on test equipment in most cases. Not many people have played their videos to the point of destruction. I can let that tape sit for many decades, and given that storage has not been abusive and I can still find working playback equipment, it will playback just fine. The issue with audio tapes from the 70s that were manufactured without ambergris as an ingredient is a specific case where tapes just sitting on the shelf are non-playable (sticky-shed syndrome), unless you bake them. Then they can be played back for transfer to digital. The baking process can be used multiple times.

“There are too many variables that can and will impact how long the tape will remain playable, but particularly with helical scan recordings, the ultimate usable lifespan tends more towards shorter rather than longer.”

Wrong and wrong. The variables are few:

1) Quality of magnetic tape used
2) Storage conditions (primarily temperature/humidity)
3) Playback equipment still available

The reality is the usable lifespan has tended toward the longer rather than the shorter, based on real-world data, not 20-year-old accelerated aging tests.

Derek

I find it amazing that people with old files in their computers truly believe that digital content will disappear in five years.

The oldest files on my hard drive date back to 1987. I have not consciously tried to archive them (although I probably should have). Every time I buy a new PC or upgrade the hard drive on my current one, I copy all the files to their new home. I also, of course, backup regularly.

Those old files are WordPerfect files, probably WordPerfect 4.x. But no one but me would know that immediately. In those days, the file extension didn't commonly identify a file type. I used the extension to help me identify the content. For instance, the file in question has the extension .GIG, because it's from my now-defunct humor column, Gigglebytes.

Can I open the file. Dragging it to Microsoft Word resulting in a combination of the text and a lot of junk. Dragging it to LibreOffice gave me the formatted file.