G'day Andrew,
I wrote the first five lines after your 'thou hast written' and the key
phrase is 'average consumer'. The point I was making is that a couple, say,
just starting a family now and recording a child's first years digitally may
find it too confusing to keep transferring image data from one storage
method to another such that in forty years time they still retain those
first images unless they have them on hard copy.
I used to be a computer geek, too. That started back in 1969 with my first
computer. I wonder how much one inch punched paper tape I would have needed
to store say, a 4X6 print <g>. BTW you don't know anybody today that has a
working paper tape reader, do you?
John.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Andrew Beals
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:11 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bandy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Bad processing of film driving people to digital?
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:58:46 +0000, plp@xxxxxxxx wrote:
In message <20020828.185920.524.255998@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> thou hast
written:
>>>In a recent Sydney newspaper an article on digital cameras
>>>pointed out that the days of archived family photographs may
>>>well be numbered. With galloping technology it could be too
>>>difficult for the average consumer to keep up with changing
>>>storage methodologies and unless hard copy is made and kept
>>
>>Yes, you must keep up with the times and copy your archives
>>religiously [<- I am not using that word lightly] every time
>>a new [OPEN] standard pops up or a new media takes dominance
>
>You have fallen into the same trap that computer geeks do.
I am a computer geek.
>Those
>geeks assume that, because they understand computers, everyone
>does.
Nope. My 83-year-old Grandmother is using a computer and I know what her
skill level is and how she approaches the durn thing.
>This is simply not true.
No! Really? Well...boy howdy!
>Many people will not keep up
>with technology and will eventually end up with images they cannot
>view. One could assume that businesses might appear to convert
>old image formats into current formats, but eventually even those
>businesses would disappear.
>How many of you now own 8-track tapes
>and the associated equipment to play them?
I'm too young to have purchased an 8-track. It was dead as a doornail by
the
time I started buying records. [e.g. the point when mom & dad's record
collections weren't good enough] However, I know a number of places where
I can buy a player, and usually tapes.
I have an LP player and have kept LPs of music that hasn't been release on
CD.
I know others with LP players and I know where to buy used ones.
Let's move the analogy back to images, shall we? I can still get
8mm movies converted. I have movies from the fifties picturing my
relatives that I now have on VHS tape. I presume my uncle with the
originals will be cutting DVDs at some point in the future. There
are lots of places to get this done, still.
I can even get old negatives from dead formats printed if I'm willing to pay
for it. Heck, I can even get copies and scans made of the photo of
my Great^Nth Grandmother that was taken when she was a nurse serving the
Union Army.
Moving back to computer technology, I have friends who own 9-track tape
drives -- I converted my big nine-tracks to 8mm over a decade ago so I
haven't
had to borrow theirs. The same friends also have TeleTypes and DECTape
drives.
I myself have a number of older technologies in store, even though I've
moved all of the "interesting" data forward to modern storage.
As I said, they have to RELIGIOUSLY [cap'ed because you seem to have missed
it the first time around] copy their photos as new media comes into common
use.
The case brought up and waved about is of the BBC's[?] Millenium Domesday
Book
which they made ten years ago. Silly gooses failed to move their data
forward
[probably because nobody was using it] and realized about a year ago that
their opportunity for reading it off was soon to be lost. It makes for
great
press, selling Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.
>What percentage of PC
>users even make regular backups?
1000f those who have lost important (not duplicated elsewhere
that needed to be accessed at a later date) data due to a system
crash.
Amongst Windoze users, that's 99.440f those who have put important
information on their machines and neglected backed it up.
Not only are my photos duplicated on hot storage, I have tape copies
and CD-Rs stored at my house and my father's house.
CD-R media is now so cheap that one could forego a six-pack of pop each
month
and copy a lifetime's worth of photos stored digitally.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|