Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'archive'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Main Board
    • Current
    • The Daily Journal
    • General Discussion
    • Equipment
    • Cameras... love them, hate them
    • Recording Direct to Computer
    • Workflow
    • The Post Place
    • Images of Interest
    • Macs... and the other computer
    • All Things Apple
    • Technical Reference
    • Do It Yourself
    • Manufacturers & Dealers
    • Work Available - Available for Work
    • Post to the Host
    • Donate to Support JWSOUNDGROUP

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 4 results

  1. Are folks comfortable backing up one source or temporarily archiving both CF and SD data? I have been using approved media (Delkin and SanDisk). I hand off files from either SD or CF depending on DIT setup, producers laptop config, etc. I have had no trouble with files from either the SD or CF card however there are still some stories floating around about people having trouble even with approved media <sic>. Years ago, in the early 7 series days, I would backup/archive from BOTH the IHD and CF until I felt comfortable enough to only backup from one source. Files would linger on the IHD for a time as well. For now I archive all 664 files from both sources and note which source was the deliverable. After sufficient time, I delete the redundant files from the non delivered source to reclaim space. Glen
  2. Ludwig Koch and the Music of Nature How a boyhood hobby led to pioneering recording of the natural world Radio historian Sean Street tells the story of Ludwig Koch, who started recording sounds and voices in the 1880s when he was still a child. In 1936, Koch fled Nazi Germany and his recordings were later acquired by the BBC. His collection established the BBC's library of natural history sounds and he became a household name as a nature broadcaster. Koch's distinct German accent and eccentric location recordings became so well known that he was parodied by Peter Sellers. Koch's recording of a Parisian street performer and the famous actor's take on it can both be heard in this programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk...eers/6505.shtml
  3. Dear people, I've been a member of this forum for a short while now, and all the info in these threads has been very helpful. And now I would like to ask you something. I post it here because I know you are people with attentive ears, a fascination for sound and probably some interesting stories to tell. My installation Soundtracks will be shown at Den Frie in Copenhagen in june, and I would like to ask you for a contribution. The idea behind soundtracks is to build an archive of memories of sound. Memories of sounds that were important to someone, that struck them or stayed with them. Soundtracks wants to research which kind of sounds get remembered, and how they are remembered. Can we hear those sounds again in our heads, or can we only remember the circumstances of the situation; the outlines, the edges of the sound? And that’s why I would like to ask you to take a moment and try to find your memory of a sound, a sound that was important to you. And I would want to ask you to write down your memory, on paper. And if you could send that memoy by post/snailmail to this address: SNYK c/o Kristine Bakken (Soundtracks) Graabrødretorv 16, st. th. DK-1154 København K Denmark You can find some more info on Soundtracks on this URL: http://versonatura.org/stijn/soundtracks/ Thanks in advance in advance, Kind regards, Stijn Demeulenaere Ps: It’s important that the memories are hand written / hand made, so please, no emails or typed letters. Apart from that, you can write in any language you prefer.
  4. I found this article originally published in 2007. I do not necessarily agree with everything the author is saying but it is definitely food for thought. New York Times: Media & Advertising The Afterlife Is Expensive for Digital Movies By MICHAEL CIEPLY Published: December 23, 2007 (LOS ANGELES) Time was, a movie studio could pack up a picture and all of its assorted bloopers, alternate takes and other odds and ends as soon as the production staff was done with them, and ship them off to the salt mine. Literally. Having figured out that really big money comes from reselling old films — on broadcast television, then cable, videocassettes, DVDs, and so on — companies like Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures for decades have been tucking their 35-millimeter film masters and associated source material into archives, some of which are housed in a Kansas salt mine, or in limestone mines in Kansas and Pennsylvania. A picture could sit for many, many years, cool and comfortable, until some enterprising executive decided that the time was ripe for, say, a Wallace Beery special collection timed to a 25th- anniversary 3-D rerelease of “Barton Fink,” with a hitherto unseen, behind-the-scenes peek at the Coen brothers trying to explain a Hollywood in-joke to John Turturro. It was a file-and-forget system that didn’t cost much, and made up for the self-destructive sins of an industry that discarded its earliest works or allowed films on old flammable stock to degrade. (Indeed, only half of the feature films shot before 1950 survive.) But then came digital. And suddenly the film industry is wrestling again with the possibility that its most precious assets, the pictures, aren’t as durable as they used to be. The problem became public, but just barely, last month, when the science and technology council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released the results of a yearlong study of digital archiving in the movie business. Titled “The Digital Dilemma,” the council’s report surfaced just as Hollywood’s writers began their walkout. Busy walking, or dodging, the picket lines, industry types largely missed the report’s startling bottom line: To store a digital master record of a movie costs about $12,514 a year, versus the $1,059 it costs to keep a conventional film master. Much worse, to keep the enormous swarm of data produced when a picture is “born digital” — that is, produced using all-electronic processes, rather than relying wholly or partially on film — pushes the cost of preservation to $208,569 a year, vastly higher than the $486 it costs to toss the equivalent camera negatives, audio recordings, on-set photographs and annotated scripts of an all-film production into the cold-storage vault. All of this may seem counterintuitive. After all, digital magic is supposed to make information of all kinds more available, not less. But ubiquity, it turns out, is not the same as permanence. In a telephone interview earlier this month, Milton Shefter, a longtime film preservationist who helped prepare the academy’s report, said the problems associated with digital movie storage, if not addressed, could point the industry “back to the early days, when they showed a picture for a week or two, and it was thrown away.” Mr. Shefter and his associates do not contend that films are actually on the verge of becoming quite that ephemeral. But they do see difficulties and trends that could point many movies or the source material associated with them toward “digital extinction” over a relatively short span of years, unless something changes. At present, a copy of virtually all studio movies — even those like “Click” or “Miami Vice” that are shot using digital processes — is being stored in film format, protecting the finished product for 100 years or more. For film aficionados, the current practice is already less than perfect. Regardless of how they are shot, most pictures are edited digitally, and then a digital master is transferred to film, which can result in an image of lower quality than a pure film process — and this is what becomes stored for the ages. But over the next couple of decades, archivists reason, the conversion of theaters to digital projection will sharply reduce the overall demand for film, eventually making it a sunset market for the main manufacturers, Kodak, Fujifilm and Agfa. At that point, pure digital storage will become the norm, bringing with it a whole set of problems that never troubled film. To begin with, the hardware and storage media — magnetic tapes, disks, whatever — on which a film is encoded are much less enduring than good old film. If not operated occasionally, a hard drive will freeze up in as little as two years. Similarly, DVDs tend to degrade: according to the report, only half of a collection of disks can be expected to last for 15 years, not a reassuring prospect to those who think about centuries. Digital audiotape, it was discovered, tends to hit a“brick wall” when it degrades. While conventional tape becomes scratchy, the digital variety becomes unreadable. Difficulties of that sort are compounded by constant change in technology. As one generation of digital magic replaces the next, archived materials must be repeatedly “migrated” to the new format, or risk becoming unreadable. Thus, NASA scientists found in 1999 that they were unable to read digital data saved from a Viking space probe in 1975; the format had long been obsolete. All of that makes digital archiving a dynamic rather than static process, and one that costs far more than studios have been accustomed to paying in the past — no small matter, given that movie companies rely on their libraries for about one-third of their $36 billion in annual revenue, according to a recent assessment by the research service Global Media Intelligence. “It’s been in the air since we started talking about doing things digitally,” Chris Cookson, president of Warner’s technical operations and chief technology officer, said of the archiving quandary. One of the most perplexing realities of a digital production like “Superman Returns” is that it sometimes generates more storable material than conventional film, creating new questions about what to save. Such pile-ups can occur, for instance, when a director or cinematographer who no longer has to husband film stock simply allows cameras to remain running for long stretches while working out scenes. Much of the resulting data may be no more worth saving that the misspellings and awkward phrases deleted from a newspaper reporter’s word-processing screen. Then again, a telling exchange between star and filmmaker might yield gold as a “special feature” on some future home-viewing format — so who wants to be responsible for tossing it into the digital dustbin? For now, studios are saving as much of this digital ephemera as possible, storing it on tapes or drives in vaults not unlike those that house traditional film. But how much of that material will be migrated when technology shifts in 7 or 10 years is anyone’s guess. (And archiving practices in the independent film world run the gamut, from studied preservation to complete inattention, noted Andrew Maltz, director of the academy’s science and technology council.) According to Mr. Shefter, a universal standard for storage technology would go far toward reducing a problem that would otherwise grow every time the geniuses who create digital hardware come up with something a little better than their last bit of wizardry. As the report put it, “If we allow technological obsolescence to repeat itself, we are tied either to continuously increasing costs — or worse — the failure to save important assets.” In other words, we could be watching Wallace Beery long after more contemporary images are gone.
  • Create New...