| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Digital vs. Traditional Preservation https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37711 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | J3a-614 [ Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Just something to read, and to think about: http://xtribune.com/2015/02/father-inte ... data-lose/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ource=SFFB (Yes, something like this has been covered in some other discussions, but couldn't find the threads.) |
|
| Author: | PCook [ Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
The problems with outdated digital media formats can be even more basic than just lack of the drives and data storage media, many suppliers of word processing and desktop publishing programs no longer support access to file formats just 15 years old. This issue surfaced just last week with technical materials from a locomotive overhaul and update program authorized in 2000 and completed in 2001-2003. Some software was discontinued in the years since then, the file types are no longer supported even in later software packages from the same manufacturer, while other file types that you would think are still supportable are now blocked by the original manufacturer through changes in registry settings. But a quick and easy solution was available. One "mint" set of the printed publications that sat unused on a shelf for 15 years, converted to searchable PDF, and subsequently to the needed current electronic formats. It proved far less of a hassle than dealing with the updating of file types that have been obsolete for a decade. As the articles say, don't throw away all of your printed materials. They could still provide the information that you need sometime in the future. PC |
|
| Author: | tomgears [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Very interesting. I think many of us have thought digital was the answer. It might actually be the problem. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Digital is easy to send across oceans to other continents, and share among many people at once. Apart from that, I dislike it compared to the reality of hardcopy which is superior in every other way. None of my old books have ever had a glitch or been unusable with no source of signal or power. dave |
|
| Author: | wesp [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
On a personal note, I have family home movies that were filmed on 16mm color in the early 1950s that were first transferred at some expense to VHS and now the VHS has been transferred at much less expense to DVD. Wesley |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
At least a couple of the critics of articles like these point out--with some justification--that these articles are thinly-veiled "infomercials" for "cloud back-up" services and even Google itself. I mean, this is what we pay IT personnel (or find young volunteers) to address. The formatting of these documents, archives, etc. is less of a problem than either the proper cataloging/archiving in the first place or the back-up/storage of such data. In a global sense, digital storage is ludicrously cheap. One of our archivists is buying external hard drives and stockpiling them every time they go on sale. A fire at his house? No problem, that's why I have a set and the Library has a set. The mission should be to NEVER, NEVER let tens of thousands of hours of work be wiped out by a hard drive corruption, broken water pipe, etc. Heck, I once had to rescue a year's worth of work from a single floppy drive that got too old! Having said this, there is a danger in becoming too reliant on any one program, be it Microsoft Office, Adobe, Photoshop, or even Microsoft or Apple OS's. It's part of why I have advocated, within my one circle of archivists, the use of freeware systems like OpenOffice. The compatibility isn't going to be perfect every time, but it will be at least somewhat workable, because they're basically designed to not be proprietary and exclusive. I was also set to purchase a book-cataloging system for the Md. Rail Heritage Library, complete with barcode reader and interface with the Library of Congress database, only to see it abandoned and orphaned by its developers just as I got the go-ahead from the board. All the pros in the field keep telling us to get PastPerfect software, starting at about $900, but that's for operating an entire museum system (including financials, maintenance, donations, membership, etc.)--for us, like getting a GE ES44AC to run a branchline excursion line. And who's to say THAT won't get orphaned someday? After all, they only have less than 10,000 clients/users worldwide. And book cataloging programs offered by companies like Readerware and Collectorz offer no greater assurance of endurance, either. Who remembers AOL chatrooms, Geocities, and MySpace? |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Recent quote from our video-cataloging guru: "Let me get this straight: Kalmbach sold this one-hour VHS cassette new for $69.95, and now I can't even GIVE it away for free at a train show????" You should have seen his face when I showed him ads for 8- and 16-mm movie films that were sold by the likes of Sunday River Productions and Main Line Motion Pictures in 1979-80: 200 feet of 8mm magnetic sound film of T&P 610 on the SR for $38.75. ($126.36 in 2014 dollars.) Super 8 sound, 180-250 feet, $29-36. ($95-120 today.) We are expediting a fast-track program to convert what Maryland MTA-produced videos we have ASAP. |
|
| Author: | Bobharbison [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
No matter WHAT format you use, in order to truly assure permanence you'll need multiple copies and periodic maintenance. At least with digital, if you're diligent, your duplicates will have the full original resolution. Digital formats can become outdated and the storage media can degrade. Hard copies are subject to rot, mold, mildew, water damage, fire, insects and rodents. They can also deteriorate due to extremes of heat and cold. We've all heard of people who've had a hard drive crash. You probably also know somebody who had all their slides fade or turn purple. How are those old Polaroids from your childhood holding up? I once put some papers into a metal box for safekeeping, thinking they'd be protected. The damn box rusted and ruined them. Even the Declaration of Independence can't avoid the fact that all materials degrade. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/charters/fading.html |
|
| Author: | Dennis Storzek [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
A few musings from someone who has not had to delve too deeply into this area, but... We are talking about two different problems here. One is backing up files, and being sure that they are stored on media that can always be read. That seems to simply be a maintenance issue. After all, your paper files won't last forever either if you don't periodically re-roof the library. The other issue is orphaned proprietary file formats. That may take a bit more work, but the main thing is not to use them in the first place. The TXT text format and TIFF graphics format have been in use for a long time, there is much legacy material in these formats, and I don't see them becoming unreadable any time soon. PDF is going to be supported as long as Adobe and any successors are still around. For the ultimate in sustainability, store in several formats. A PDF can save a true facsimile of the document that is searchable... but also saving the text as a TXT file will preserve the information likely forever, and saving a bit map of the page as a TIFF can preserve the appearance. Storage is cheap. |
|
| Author: | Kevin Gilliam [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
wesp wrote: On a personal note, I have family home movies that were filmed on 16mm color in the early 1950s that were first transferred at some expense to VHS and now the VHS has been transferred at much less expense to DVD. Wesley True, and that will work.....although you'd be surprised at the quality you could get from transferring the 16mm movies directly to digital (be it tape or pure digital files). There was a lot more resolution than vhs could ever support, even before it would lose quality over the years. Kevin |
|
| Author: | Ken Middlebrook [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Within our museum's archives, we have some of the oldest handwritten documents in the State of California with the earliest dating back to 1781. This entire collection entails over 5,000 documents. In the 1940s, the city of San Jose's plan was to convert these documents to the hi-tech for the day...microfilm. It was believed to be preserved for the future. Currently in 2015, the microfilm is degrading rapidly. Furthermore, the microfilming was done poorly with documents mismatched, unmarked and, at times blury. And the 5,000+ original documents?...Thrown into the trash. Thankfully, an individual retrieved the entire set which became an integral part of the new city historical museum in 1948. Following proper conservation techniques, these documents remain available for future generations. Do not dispose of the original format be it paper, slides, or photographs. Ken Middlebrook History San Jose |
|
| Author: | Ken Middlebrook [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
[quote="Alexander D. Mitchell IV"]All the pros in the field keep telling us to get PastPerfect software, starting at about $900, but that's for operating an entire museum system (including financials, maintenance, donations, membership, etc.)--for us, like getting a GE ES44AC to run a branchline excursion line. And who's to say THAT won't get orphaned someday? After all, they only have less than 10,000 clients/users worldwide. While there is always that possibility, it is very remote. With countless hours spent entering into their databases, there are enough PP users to ensure an industry supported solution would become available. Rather than seen as an expense, PP should be viewed as an investment into your museum operations. |
|
| Author: | Metman499 [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
I cannot agree more strongly with saving the originals. You never know what new technology or preservation method is going to come along down the road. Color and exposure correction technology are amazing compared to what what achievable 20 years ago. As far as cataloging software is concerned we have used dbTextworks by Inmagic for many years. Should it ever become obsolete we have successfully converted our databases to and from Excel and Access and likely could do so with other formats that may come in the future. Some of our databases in Textworks originated on Apple IIe's in the 1980s and are still around, just formatted for the current program. This flexibility will ensure our data's survivability for some time, hopefully |
|
| Author: | Becky Morgan [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
This is relevant to my interests. When it comes to "Paper or digital?" my answer is a very firm "Yes." Keeping the originals doesn't have to mean making them available for display or even use. It means making sure they're as safe as possible somewhere. Storage cost for them in a good facility is just part of the cost of doing business. As to the format, while text files are useful, I have been most grateful for those facilities that took time and effort to make .pdfs or other full views of their originals. Notes in the margins and ads on the side of the page are often a bigger story than the story. For instance, Mom talked about the great picnics her church used to have in the 1920s. I had found several text-file newspaper accounts of the OR&W running excursion trains to the events (once reporting the special departed with thirty people on the caboose; knowing the size of a narrow-gauge caboose, I suspect "on" was accurate.) One day I happened to be looking for something else entirely and ran across an ad for the year's picnic, complete with schedule of events and a note that there would be a "baloon assension." The ad was sponsored by a local print shop run by an elderly Civil War veteran whose presence in the area we'd been unable to confirm until then. It's a pity that one local newspaper's first couple of decades are only available on the standard, blurred, slightly grayish microfilm because their morgue caught fire in the late 1920s. Were there only money and time enough, getting all of the old newspapers available scanned with current equipment would be an enormous boon. |
|
| Author: | p51 [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 5:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Digital vs. Traditional Preservation |
Never mind the ability to sotre the digital files or support them, think of improved technology in the future. Don't forget all the libraries which thought micofilm was the end-all way to preserve newspapers and magazines. All that stuff was photographed in b/w and a lot of it then tossed into landfills. Try looking at that stuff now if you can even find a reader for it. And in many cases, those bad photos of the pages are all that's left because nobody stopped to think anything would be better in the future. Digital is fine, but the resolution will always keep getting better... |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|