Dangers of Digital Technology

[adamgarner]

Perhaps we're all doomed and our home movies will never be found by aliens. It's a shame they'll never know what our holidays and weddings were like. :lol:

[mr_x]

Perhaps we're all doomed and our home movies will never be found by aliens. It's a shame they'll never know what our holidays and weddings were like. :lol:

in which case our imperfect technologies will have spared them hours and hours of home movie watching

:lol:

[Angus]

Its true that "a computer sold today that could not read jpegs probably wouldn't be successful"...that's because today we like jpegs.

However, when I first started using a computer to generate new images, 256 colour gifs were the norm. Now I know the gif standard is still quite widely supported but some versions are not. The floppy discs I have on which I created gifs in 1990-1992 can be read and copied...but the actual files need special software to decode the photos. Its not a type of gif currently supported.

Who's to say that MPEG2, MPEG4 and even jpegs will be common in 10 yeras time?

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Its true that "a computer sold today that could not read jpegs probably wouldn't be successful"...that's because today we like jpegs.

And because extremely important things for everyone is saved as jpegs. All the photos we take. Pretty darn important if you ask me.

Support for something that is important for 99.99% of the population is something that will continue.

However, when I first started using a computer to generate new images, 256 colour gifs were the norm...

How many people have extremely important things saved as these very old 256 colour gif-images? I´m guessing less than 0.01% of the population.

Who will miss support for these files if they drop supporting them (as they already have apparently, according to you)? Well nobody that I know.

The floppy discs I have on which I created gifs in 1990-1992 can be read and copied...but the actual files need special software to decode the photos.

Great! Copy them and save them as new files, as jpegs. This way you will take the important images to the next format, and you will never again have to worry about being able to decode the old gif-files.

Who's to say that MPEG2, MPEG4 and even jpegs will be common in 10 yeras time?

I am.

How many millions of people have photos from their children when they are newborn (as jpegs)? I´m guessing just about everyone who has had a kid the last five years or so. There you go, 100% of the population would go apeshit if a computer suddenly couldn´t "decode jpegs", as if that would be a difficult task for future computers.

They won´t drop support for jpegs.

Next, the mpeg compression. How many own a DVD? I´m guessing 99% of the population again. It is so common and so widely spread... they just cannot stop supporting mpeg decoding.

You cannot really compare computers from 25 years ago with computers today. Almost nobody had anything extremely important in their computers back then, not anything that is still important today anyway. Just about everyone has a computer today, and people use computers quite differently today compared to 20 years ago.

Today people have important, extremely important, things as jpegs. Believe me when I say they won´t quit supporting jpegs. They just won´t.

[adamgarner]

I do agree that jpegs are the photo "standard," now. I do agree that mpeg2 is the DVD standard, now.

But, I don't think you can say that just because 100% of the population has DVD's it's a gold standard and future proof. Firstly, consider the vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD to mp3 to m4a "upkeep." Ask a 60 year old if they ever though (or were told) that 8-tracks were the "wave of the future." Newer, better media is simply part of the audio and video industry. Manufacturers simply don't give a flying f*ck if your movie library is all DVD. When future-babies are confused about why we ever had a physical disc to watch movies, rather than just downloading the 4K version to our 4K Super3D-HDTV's we'll look at our DVD's and think "ahhh, I remember when this was amazing..."

Consider that the Cathode Ray Tube Televisions were 100% of the market. God forbid we ask everyone to change! I mean, HDTV?... time to update right? What happens when HDTV is surpassed? Don't say it WONT happen. Phillips has already developed a 3DTV that doesn't require glasses.

I think you need to widen your window beyond 10-20 years and consider the 30-50-100 year window. Jpegs, Mpeg2's, and things of the past few decades will be upgraded and support will be left behind. It's inevitable.

Again, like the white-paper says: digital media used as recently as 20 years ago are already incompatible with most of today's systems."

Physical analog media is archival. Digital is not accepted.

[MovieStuff]

Film can theoretically be stored to last for generations but we often get film that was stored poorly and is mildewed, faded, warped, etc. So the superior archival properties of film are meaningless unless the person storing them is vigilant and understands the importance of proper storage. Yes, digital files can be migrated almost indefinitely but they won't copy themselves automatically any more than film will store itself properly automatically. If the same type of care is given to someone's digital archives as he would his film archives, then that person will always have access to his home movies, regardless of whether they were shot on digital or film. But if he simply forgets or doesn't care until it is too late, then the relative differences between storing film and digital are too little too late. What is possible, technically, is rarely what the majority of people do as a regular habit. So conversations about changes in technology over time really don't mean much if it ignores human intervention or a lack thereof. So the conversation then becomes which will last longer if the person forgets to store properly; digital or film? Does it really matter? Not to me. If they don't care enough to store it properly, then why should I care?

Roger

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Firstly, consider the vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD to mp3 to m4a...

Why are you talking about analog formats again? I never said you can copy analog to analog without loosing quality.

If you skip all your analog formats and start with a CD. Now if you copied that CD to a hard drive anr/or a DVD... and later to a Blu-ray to store the data and to a "whatever", to keep the digital data, then you have not lost any quality.

And yes, I think that future computers are capable of decoding and playback of a wav-file.

What happens when HDTV is surpassed? Don't say it WONT happen.

Of course it will. Then you can use your QXZ-HDTV to view your jpegs and mpegs. Not from a DVD player, but from a computer.

Jpegs, Mpeg2's, and things of the past few decades will be upgraded and support will be left behind. It's inevitable.

Yes, the drives that can play a CD/DVD will be left behind. If you don´t let yourself be left behind you can just copy your digital files to whatever is the data-format used the year 2050.

But it doesen´t mean that the computers would be incapable of showing a jpeg. Sure, they might not play a optical disc, or have any USB-ports for your flash drive, but if you copied the content while those things existed you should have everything you need in the format of the future.

Hell if for some totally weird reason a computer 2050 won´t be capable to decode a jpeg, send me all your jpegs. I will convert them to whatever imaging format is used in the future (but be sure to do it while optical drives are available).

Again, like the white-paper says: digital media used as recently as 20 years ago are already incompatible with most of today's systems."

Yes, but consider how many had extremely important content in their computers 20 years ago? All I had was games.

Who cares if we can use the media used 20 years ago? If you have important content in your computer (like jpegs or mpegs) then migrate it while it is possible to do so.

Physical analog media is archival. Digital is not accepted.

Perhaps here I can make my point clear. I am not talking about the digital media (the optical drives, hard drives and such) as being archival and accessible the year 2050. I am talking about the content, the digital content.

The images that are saved as jpeg files, not the optical disc. If you keep those files migrated I really really think that the images will be fully accessible the year 2300 (if earth still exists), at least if the images were copied to new media and possibly new fileformats as zcv-images instead of jpg-images.

[Mitch Perkins]

Almost nobody had anything extremely important in their computers back then, not anything that is still important today anyway.

Huh?

Believe me when I say they won´t quit supporting jpegs. They just won´t.

I pretty much do believe you, but "believe me when I say" isn't exactly a rock solid argument.....

I think the danger of digital technology is the same as any other technology, and that danger is...... not knowing what you're doing!

Mitch

[adamgarner]

I support what you say : No one USED to use their computer for photos and music. So, there was NO standard. Now, it's pretty much ALL we use if for, so it's safe to assume the standard has more longevity. Agree.

I only used analog in my previous statement because physical media changes frequently, as does technology. If I had baby pictures, I'd definately print out some copies. I'd also archival package my wedding film. If I want to be SURE I can hand down this type of stuff, I wouldn't assume it'd be ok to copy the DVD every 10 years. Per Roger's point, you have to keep up with it, or store celluloid the right way. It's totally up to you.

I still side with the white-paper. DVD's and Magnetic Tape will eventually lose data, much quicker if stored wrong. If stored RIGHT, it will last up to 20 years (assuming the technology to read it hasn't expired). Film can store for centuries and doesn't take much to decode as it's a photograph.

[MovieStuff]

If stored RIGHT, it [electronic media] will last up to 20 years (assuming the technology to read it hasn't expired). Film can store for centuries and doesn't take much to decode as it's a photograph.

I dunno....if one wants to ask "what if a digital medium is left forgotten in some drawer somewhere along with a photo and then, years later, there is nothing to play the digital on...."....well....that's a weak argument for the superiority of chemical based imagery. It presumes an environment that is favorable to the survival of the print when, historically, prints and film stored improperly usually end up looking like crap (heat, bugs, humidity, rot, not to mention children!). The argument also presumes a level of care for the print that is purposely not extended to the digital medium (such as timely migration).

So this is all irrelevant unless we are talking about purposely stashing something away for 20 years and only thinking about doing something with it at that late point in time, which is unlikely. So the idea that film can theoretically be stored for centuries (this has not be proven) as opposed to "only" (my quotes) 20 years is like saying that, left to rot, spam will last longer than steak because spam has more preservatives. Useful information, to be sure, but only if one intends to let it rot.

If one is as vigilant about migrating his digital files as he is about properly storing his chemical based imagery, then the electronic media should last as long, if not longer, than the chemical based media because the migration of digital does not affect the quality of the image across time. This simply can not be said for chemical based photos. Even under the best of storage conditions, they do change. Digital does not.

[mr_x]

case in fact: i took an armful of photos in 2005 in North Wales - some historical sites. Yesterday i wanted to upload one of these images. I found the disk i saved the jpegs to, a PNY 'Need More Memory?' CD-R 700MB High Performance compact disk. I put it in my optical reader. The file contents came up as standard jpeg icons but only one or two turned into thumbnails. None of these would open. I tried to open one in Photoshop and got a message telling me the file was 'truncated' - sounds pretty drastic - i have no idea what it means: but it looks as if several CF cards worth of memories and reference material are now forever sealed into cyber half-life inside the compact disk. It is a ridiculous situation - do i need to carry a film camera every time i pack the digital? i really like using the digital camera - but with analogue at least you have the negatives to go back to, if all else fails. In this case i have a shiny, carefully archived disk and that is all: need more memory? you betcha!

[MovieStuff]

......... but it looks as if several CF cards worth of memories and reference material are now forever sealed into cyber half-life inside the compact disk. It is a ridiculous situation - do i need to carry a film camera every time i pack the digital? i really like using the digital camera - but with analogue at least you have the negatives to go back to, if all else fails. In this case i have a shiny, carefully archived disk and that is all: need more memory? you betcha!

Well, this only drives home the point that digital can and should be migrated or copied regularly. Yes, with analog you have the negatives to fall back on as long as you take care of them. Sorry for the loss of your imagery but, with digital, you'd have a second (or even third, forth of fifth) perfect copy to fall back on had you taken such precautionary steps. That people don't make back ups of their digital imagery when they should isn't a reflection of an inherent problem with digital but, rather, how people simply forget to do what's right. I mean, this story could have a different ending had you remembered to make a digital back up but forgot where your negatives were. ;)

Roger

[aj]

case in fact: i took an armful of photos in 2005 in North Wales - some historical sites. Yesterday i wanted to upload one of these images. I found the disk i saved the jpegs to, a PNY 'Need More Memory?' CD-R 700MB High Performance compact disk. I put it in my optical reader. The file contents came up as standard jpeg icons but only one or two turned into thumbnails. None of these would open. I tried to open one in Photoshop and got a message telling me the file was 'truncated' - sounds pretty drastic - i have no idea what it means: but it looks as if several CF cards worth of memories and reference material are now forever sealed into cyber half-life inside the compact disk. It is a ridiculous situation - do i need to carry a film camera every time i pack the digital? i really like using the digital camera - but with analogue at least you have the negatives to go back to, if all else fails. In this case i have a shiny, carefully archived disk and that is all: need more memory? you betcha!

CD-R is not recommended medium for long-term backup or storage. I.e. not longer than a year. It is also good practice to keep double copies on independent systems.

Use the drive it was written on and try reading it at single speed. Or find and try a CD rescue program. Maybe this can save the day with fiddling the drive parameters.

[71er]

My grandparents did not take a lot of care when it came to store their standard 8 films and so didn't my parents. Most of the films are still in a great condition and all of them are watchable. I can see that some of them are shrinking and a few have a colour shift; so my kids can still watch the films but their kids might not be able anymore; but they will not be interested as they don't know the people on the films ... So maybe an archive will be interested to save some footage to show what Ravenna, Italy, looked like in 1957, but for family purposes the life expectancy of film is long enough.
I find it very odd to say to mr_x that he didn't take enough care: come on, his disc is going to be 4 years old now - you shouldn't have to expect that it is already corrupted.
One thing I didn't understand in the discussion until now: you don't lose any data when you copy digital information from one format to another? As far as I understood for example jpeg compression it works with areas on the picture; so the original information that each sensor (pixel) in the camera received when the picture was taken is already lost anyway. So jpeg interpretes a lot of pixels to make up for a part of an image; and when it gets transfered to a different format that has another algorithm to do the compression it stays completely the same? I do not believe this. I think the overall image might look the same to us but when you go to the single pixels they will be changed. Maybe I'm wrong but I am sure you will tell me about it.
By the way: the world out there is not digital; I actually do not believe that the digital hype we are experiencing now is the last word spoken ...

[VideoFred]

You cannot really compare computers from 25 years ago with computers today. Almost nobody had anything extremely important in their computers back then,

I had... And I still can read that information without any fault (databases, dbaseII, migrated to visualfoxpro)

Look.. we must learn how to preserve digital files. A good backup and update method is a must.

I still think digital has the potential to last forever, with no quality loss.

Fred.