I'm concerned that the same thing will happen to libraries and books someday. Books are a great technology. I hope we don't throw them out too.
CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#32How do they digitize it? 8K RAW and no Compression?
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#33[Edit: See comment for correction that explains that Radio-Canada includes TV. I'll leave this here because some of the info is valid] From the article: It also questioned why Radio-Canada was preserving its master recordings after making digital copies but CBC had opted to rely only on digital copies This statement shows a lack of understanding of the problem. Old audio recordings can still be played. Old video reco…
Very old audio equipment is in a similar boat - I know archivists who are prioritizing stuff for digitization based on the number of tape head hours they think they've got left in older machines.
Is contact absolutely required in such old machines - I wonder if you could float the tape using, say, air [1], ultrasound, or silicon spray, or even just carefully fitted wheels in order to maximize life of the head itself.
I'm surprised generic non-contact magnetic readers haven't been developed for retro tech given the prevalence of magnetic storage tech for HDDs.
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#34To play Devil's advocate, keeping the originals isn't just keeping, it means a commitment to maintaining them in an environmentally controlled space, following all fire prevention standards, in an organized fashion. It's easy to see why they would be wanting to cut down those costs to zero, especially due to forthcoming digitization and storage costs. On the other hand, it's also clearly an issue of controlling who h…
An organisation is offerring to do the retention, as mentioned not only in the article itself, but directly in its subhead: "A charitable foundation asked CBC for time to find a storage space for the archive, but was turned down." CBC are destroying the records regardless.
That is something I will never understand. What are they worried about exactly, rights infringement?
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#35Assuming that the digitization is done diligently, committing to long-term maintenance of the originals would be borderline hoarding.
No, digital preservation is much harder than most people think. Digital media degrade too. Hard disks, optical media and magnetic tape all degrade over time. Paper and film are fairly durable. They can be preserved without any maintenance for quite a long time. Format obsolescence means that it can be hard to read old files. Sometimes, you need to track down a precise version of a program. The more tricky issue is th…
Digital files can be duplicated, hashed, have redundancy logically built in.
Analogue files render incorrectly too; surfaces deteriorate - media rots, oxidises, decays.
I've got digital files from last millennium that have survived better than analogue ones - both written text and images. For the most important I've kept logical and physical redundancy (but not yet needed it); much harder to do with bulky physical media.
Libraries in my UK city, and across the UK, have been closed rapidly in the last few years - the materials are generally dumped/sold, but the data from all of them could be held in a small box (computer) with multiple redundant backups for the cost of a couple of magazine subscriptions. For one librarians wage this could all be easily shared with the entire web.
We, or at least I, am keen to hang on to some artefacts. But a lot of what we keep seems to be primarily useful for navel gazing.
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#36Assuming that the digitization is done diligently, committing to long-term maintenance of the originals would be borderline hoarding.
If that is the case, lets take a picture of the Mona Lisa and shred the damn thing. All that maintenance and security is just a waste, right?
Well, ask the same question about a mediocre portrait picturing someone of no [recorded/remembered] societal note by an artist no-one knows anything else about and I'd say "absolutely". Take pictures, make them available to the public, give the original away - use the remaining 99% of the upkeep costs for something else.
When a robot/printer is able to make a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa down to the brush strokes, and we can experience it in VR without even needing the replica, the answer to your question might change for most works too.
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recordings that are not public domain are sold all the time... is there something that makes these different?
Just as with any other recording, I can make a backup copy for archiving purposes, but if I start selling those backup copies then that's a violation of copyright laws.
In USA copyright, not in all jurisdictions. Backups and format shifting are not allowed in the UK.
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#38>He who controls the past controls the future. Hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to minimize and erase Canadian culture, such as it is. Nice A / B with the french counterpart, where there is political will to bolster theirs.
Format shifting isn't erasure though.
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Magnetic tape is hard to keep. Film is even harder, it is flammable and decays as well. Needs controlled atmosphere to keep well.
B&W film will live in a shoebox in the attic for 100 years and be retrievable just by shining a light through it. Digital media becomes inaccessible very quickly; I have floppy disks I can no longer easily or reliably read...
Re: CBC is destroying its broadcast archives after they’re digitized
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that is the case, lets take a picture of the Mona Lisa and shred the damn thing. All that maintenance and security is just a waste, right?
Well, ask the same question about a mediocre portrait picturing someone of no [recorded/remembered] societal note by an artist no-one knows anything else about and I'd say "absolutely". Take pictures, make them available to the public, give the original away - use the remaining 99% of the upkeep costs for something else. When a robot/printer is able to make a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa down to the brush strokes…
High-res scans of sculptures are already a thing [0]. Just send the polygon mesh to a 3d printing and presto, you get your own David by Michelangelo.
However, painting would be waay more difficult, especially in cases (such as Van Gogh) where the artist deliberately applies thick layers of paint.
(I find the idea of intentionally destroying the originals to be ludicrous, but hey, more future-proofing is always good)