Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)

["Robert Kehl" <bobkehl@kvernkehl.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) <caryenochr@enochsvision.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)


> >
> >I agree with you here Alan,
> >with emphasis being on rearchiving your digital files.
> >BUT keep hat neg or slide archived as best you can because when you're
ready
> >to make a new super duper print on whatever whiz bang is available in
15-20
> >years, you may get a much better image by rescanning the original if it
is
> >intact.  If not, you've got your currently rearchived digital media to
fall
> >back on.
>
>
> This discussion has led me to one conclusion that seems inescapable.
> Clearly it's important to refresh our media assets every few years to keep
> pace with technology. Perhaps the archival method with the greatest
> longevity and 'universality' today is a high quality archival print
> probably made on an Epson 2000P and stored under optimal conditions. In
> another generation or two the images will still be there but the software
> and old file formats won't be.
>



Yes, the Epson 2000P prints would be universal.  BUT, we don't really know
how long they will last.  We only have laboratory simulations that say they
have archival qualities.  I don't see them as any more accurate than the
laboratory analysis that assured us that film had archival qualities.

Nope, for my buck ($US) digital storage that is rearchived forward to the
latest media and lossless file types seems the most reliable and it's
getting cheaper every day.   But keeping the original neg or an archived
photo as backup sure makes sense.

Bob Kehl