[filmscanners] Re: Archiving???!!!

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic@telus.net>]

Sam McCandless wrote:

> At 4:03 AM -0800 12/9/04, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>>A small bit of technological information to perhaps clarify some issues.
>>[big snip]
>
>
> A nice explication, Art.
>
> Did you not deal with DVD because you agree with Brad?
>

No, I left out DVD because I haven't bought one yet, and therefore I
have not done a great deal of research into the units or the media.
Obviously, the design crams a lot more data into a smaller space, but
that doesn't necessarily mean the storage is less reliable.  After all
today's hard drives are much more reliable in terms of error rates (not
speaking of mechanical breakdown necessarily) than much large, older,
slower, and lower density units were years ago.

My only worry with DVD is that they hold a heck of a lot of data and a
failed disk could mean that much more lost.  However, as others have
pointed out, by triplicate copies, you get good value both in terms of
cost and space.  I have to admit double layering makes me nervous for
archiving, but 4.7 gigs isn't bad with single layer.

I believe the functionality of the disks in terms of DVD-+R verses
DVD-+RW is similar.  DVD-RAM is based upon Phase change also, in fact
it's precursor was PD, also invented by Panasonic, and PD disks are
readable on many DVD-RAM drives.

Art

>
>> > [snip]
>>
>>> I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have,
>>> they seem to be an even more fugitive medium.
>>
>> > [snip]
>
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Sam
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body