Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?

["Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl & Assoc." <BobKehl@kvernkehl.com>]

Karl,

Your words are well taken.

I would say that your solution may be the best for a "no touch" archive.

My personal preference is to be have an actively maintained archive.  I am
content to be the computer technician (or at least have an archive
compatible machine maintained for use) and to take an active stance in
maintaining my archives.  With this position being accepted, I like IDE
removable drives best, because I can put them on line and refresh them much
more quickly.  Yes, they are more fragile.  Therefore redundancy may be
quite worthwhile.

The question I would put forth (no answers required) is this:
If our archives are valuable and a little annual effort can keep them
secure, or more secure, why opt for a "hands off" archive?

Best Regards

Bob Kehl

PS. I have two of two original 80486 PC's originally running windows 3.1
(yuck) and upgraded to Windows 95.  They have been out of use for about two
years and moved from house to house.  I fired one up the other day.  It
booted and logged onto the network with no problem.


----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Schulmeisters <karlsch@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?


> Respectfully, I agree with much of the below but there are some  things I
> disagree with.  I work for a company that was involved in a major lawsuit.
> At the time of "discovery" I worked for the IT department and watched the
> furious scramble to comply with the subpoenas issued for the backed up
data.
> They had been using stuff that was 'industry standard', but within less
than
> 10 years, they had difficulty finding a combination of
> a) reader
> b) computer
> c) operating system
> d) device driver
> that would let them extract the data, AND communicate it to a printer or
> other digital data system
>
> Recently I resurrected (or tried to ) an old Win 95 machine (5-8yrs old).
> Even though nothing had been done to it, other than move the boxes from
one
> house to the other, it would not boot.  I got it to boot using Linux, but
> that of course meant reformatting the boot drive, and since it no longer
is
> the original OS, the other device drivers may or maynot work (one hard
drive
> just would not spin up and the floppy drive was so out of alignment it
would
> not read any floppies).  So unless you want to become an electronics
repair
> technician this isn't a viable alternative.  And this is the problem with
> MOD
>
> CDROMs are susceptible to 'bit rot' - what happens is that exposure to any
> sort of light results in degradation of the plastic protective coating.
The
> more use, the more the damage.  So even if there are no scratches, that
> coating can, and does, become optically opaque (I suspect that atmospheric
> oxidation does this as well).  Some studies have shown that as little as 5
> years of sitting in an optical jukebox can cause enough bit-rot that
stored
> source code will not compile without errors.
>
> I haven't seen studies on  CDRs and CDRWs but I suspect they are more
> vulnerable to this.  The same 'fogging' applies to DVDs of all forms
(though
> perhaps the plastic formulations have improved).
>
> Removable IDEs have the problem that they are fragile, and the docking
bays
> may or may not be supported by the OS flavour (yes in theory IDE is IDE,
but
> it doesn't always work out that way).
>
> So for a 20 year archive, I would print to 2 CDRs and keep the original
negs
> in a cool-dry place (in essence that is what Corbis is doing with the
> Betteman archive).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl & Assoc." <BobKehl@kvernkehl.com>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best digital archive medium for scans?
>
>
> > My long and detailed comments are below.
> >
> > BK
> >
> >
> > Removable IDE hard drive storage is a higher speed solution for high
> volume
> > storage.  It is much less time consuming but requires more maintenance
and
> > attention.  It is about as expensive as DVD, but much faster.  60GB IDE
> hard
> > drives are now selling for about $150.  That's about $2.50 per MB.
> > Removable hard drive frames are about $15 each and the cartridges that
> holds
> > the hard drives are about $10 each. Hard drive storage is, at least, as
> > reliable as any other magnetic medium as long as it is removed from the
> host
> > machine and stored properly.  One solution would be to archive to a
> > removable IDE hard drive and copy to a second removable hard drive for
> > redundancy.  Remove both and keep them properly stored.  Refresh them
> every
> > couple of years to ensure data integrity by running scandisk (PC) or
some
> > similar utility.  Another solution would be to set up an inexpensive
> mirror
> > raid array to automatically keep a redundant copy of your data on line.
> > This is the most hassle free but involves a slight risk, should lighting
> > strike or some other catastrophy take out your entire machine.
> >
> >
> > As hard drive costs are dropping as quickly, or more quickly, than other
> > media, I feel this is the best solution for those who want hassle free,
> high
> > speed, high volume storage.  Like DVD it is getting less and less
> expensive
> > but is not for the faint of wallet.  : )
> >
> > For me paying $150 for 60 GB of storage is pretty painless since I
> remember
> > not that long ago (for some of us) paying $1000 for a 10 MB hard disk.
> Yes
> > I said 10 MEGA bytes.  It was new technology in 1984.  Most people only
> had
> > 2-5 MB hard drives.
> >
> >
> > Way more than my US $0.02 worth!
> >
> > Bob Kehl
> > Principal
> > Kvernstoen, Kehl & Associates
> > Star Prairie, WI  54026
> > bobkehl@kvernkehl.com
> >
> > Check out our website: www.kvernkehl.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>