View Full Version : The Twilight Zone filmed on Video Tape?


Pages : [1] 2

kdaracal
07-03-2011, 07:51 PM
Anyone ever notice a few episodes of the original Twilight Zone show was video taped, instead of regular filmed? ie: "The Long Distance Call", (1962) with Billy Mumy calling his grandma on a haunted toy phone. Was the producers experimenting with the new media? Anyone know the back story on this? Or why it was used and then seemingly dropped?

I kind of find it interesting. It also makes for a creepier effect. It reminds me of "Dark Shadows".

Chrisisall
07-03-2011, 07:59 PM
Anyone ever notice a few episodes of the original Twilight Zone show was video taped, instead of regular filmed?
Yeah; early TV. A seventies show, The Starlost was also on tape. STTNG was shot on film, then posted on tape.

I hate tape.:lol:

Dave Hawkins
07-03-2011, 10:12 PM
Anyone know the back story on this? Or why it was used and then seemingly dropped?

It was a cost cutting move by the network. Six episodes during the second season were taped as an experiment to see if it was feasible to shoot on tape instead of film. Here is what the Trivia section of the Twilight Zone entry on IMDB has to say about this:

"Due to budgetary constraints in its second season, the network decided to cut costs by shooting some episodes on videotape rather than film. Because videotape was a relatively primitive medium in the early 1960s, the editing of tape was next to impossible. Thus, each of the 6 episodes was "camera-cut" as in live TV, on a studio sound stage, using a total of four cameras. The requisite multicamera setup of the videotape experiment, pretty much precluded location shooting, severely limiting the potential scope of the story-lines, and so, the short-lived experiment was ultimately abandoned. The 6 videotaped episodes were titled: "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {The Lateness of the Hour (#2.8)}; "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {Static (#2.20)}; "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {The Whole Truth (#2.14)}; "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {The Night of the Meek (#2.11)}; "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {Twenty Two (#2.17)}; "The Twilight Zone" (1959) {Long Distance Call (#2.22)}."

I hope I didn't just break a copywrite law by posting that.

Dave

jheilman
07-03-2011, 11:22 PM
Thanks for that info. I noticed that in a few episodes, but wrongly assumed that the original film had been lost and a tape copy was all that existed. Nice to know the tape is the original.

Dave Hawkins
07-04-2011, 12:00 AM
Thanks for that info. I noticed that in a few episodes, but wrongly assumed that the original film had been lost and a tape copy was all that existed. Nice to know the tape is the original.
You're welcome. Actually, I'm surprised the taped episodes actually survived. Back in the 50s and 60s, a lot of shows that were shot on videotape were erased and the tapes reused in order to save money. The BBC in England did this to most of the early William Hartnell Dr. Who episodes and they're gone. If I remember correctly, many episodes of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson were lost because NBC recycled the tapes.

Dave

John P
07-04-2011, 09:16 AM
"Filmed on video tape"?

;)

sbaxter
07-04-2011, 12:42 PM
I've seen a few of the episodes in question; it's instantly noticeable. They look like soap operas in comparison to the rest of the show's run.

Qapla'

SSB

jheilman
07-04-2011, 02:34 PM
"Filmed on video tape"?

;)

I hear folks today talking about "filming" something with their digital video cameras. It's now the generic term for capturing video - regardless of whether any actual film is involved.

Zorro
07-04-2011, 04:00 PM
"Night of the Meek" is the one videotaped TW episode that really works for me and which I think would have been less effective as a typical filmed episode. It is clearly directed "live on tape" and Carney's live experience on "The Honeymooners" definitely shines through. It's a powerfully moving performance.

Steve H
07-04-2011, 07:39 PM
I hear folks today talking about "filming" something with their digital video cameras. It's now the generic term for capturing video - regardless of whether any actual film is involved.

Some terms will just stick with us, and really, I'm fine with that. I think 'filmed' sounds better than, say, 'captured' or even 'recorded', the word 'filmed' somewhat implies something special.

I've given up trying to get my mom to stop calling DVDs 'tapes' :)

iriseye
07-05-2011, 01:09 PM
I always wondered what "Night of the Meek" would look like if it were filmed like the other episodes. It still was a great episode.

John P
07-06-2011, 07:36 AM
Some terms will just stick with us, and really, I'm fine with that. I think 'filmed' sounds better than, say, 'captured' or even 'recorded', the word 'filmed' somewhat implies something special.

I've given up trying to get my mom to stop calling DVDs 'tapes' :)

I'm having that crisis of terms with my new digital camcorder that records to an SD card. I keep saying "Got it on tape - errr." :lol:

Rotwang
07-06-2011, 12:20 PM
I've noticed on a lot of early video footage, if an actor made a really quick movement, that sometimes there would be kind of a really weird blur or streak.
Don't know if this was a lighting or tape problem.

Zorro
07-06-2011, 12:35 PM
I've noticed on a lot of early video footage, if an actor made a really quick movement, that sometimes there would be kind of a really weird blur or streak.
Don't know if this was a lighting or tape problem.

It was a camera/lighting problem. The early tube cameras couldn't process "hot" spots or rapid movement very well.

Basically - prior to Digital TV, there were three delivery/archival mediums used in television - film, Kinescope, and videotape. Prior to the use of videotape,TV programs were broadcast "live" using video cameras, or they were shot (and edited) on film and then broadcast from a film chain through a video camera, or they were shot with video cameras which were recorded to film by pointing a film camera at a video monitor - this was called a Kinescope. Each has a distinctive look - if you know what you're looking at.*

*There was also Jackie Gleason's "Electronicam" - which was a variation on a theme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope#Change_to_35_mm_film_broadcasts

Zorro
07-06-2011, 01:22 PM
I'm having that crisis of terms with my new digital camcorder that records to an SD card. I keep saying "Got it on tape - errr." :lol:

We recently went on vacation and didn't even take our "camera". However, we shot lots of pics with our iPhones.

kenlee
07-06-2011, 01:31 PM
Some terms will just stick with us, and really, I'm fine with that. I think 'filmed' sounds better than, say, 'captured' or even 'recorded', the word 'filmed' somewhat implies something special.

I've given up trying to get my mom to stop calling DVDs 'tapes' :)

Old habits are hard to break. When I worked in a video store in the early 80's we started selling Atari 2600 games, almost everyone called the cartridges "tapes". I guess this was because of the similarity to the way 8-track tapes worked.

jheilman
07-06-2011, 08:40 PM
I think these days, our technology changes much more rapidly than our terminology. Filming, taping, etc. I suppose you can still use recording with a digital vcam, but recording was usually reserved for tape (either audio or video). But, you are still capturing a record of an event, right?

BEBruns
07-06-2011, 09:08 PM
When was the last time you dialed a phone?

Still waiting for new terminology for that.

Krel
07-06-2011, 10:16 PM
We recently went on vacation and didn't even take our "camera". However, we shot lots of pics with our iPhones.

About four years ago I was at the Village at Disney World right after Thanksgiving. The place was very crowded, and as I walked through the crowd, I heard the most mind twisting comment I had ever heard. I heard this woman clap her hands and say: "Everybody gather around so I can take a picture with my phone". :freak:

I was able to blow a lot of peoples minds when they observed that I was using a 35mm camera. "LooK! He's got a FILM camera"! :lol: I will be using my K1000 as long as they keep making film.

David.

John P
07-06-2011, 10:25 PM
^At the local deli one lunchtime, a group of 6th graders from the school up the street were hanging out. One boy asked the shop owner what time it was. The shop owner pointed to the big industrial Hamilton clock on the wall. The kid said, "I can't read that," then asked his friends if anyone had a phone so he could check the time readout.

:freak:

Chrisisall
07-06-2011, 10:26 PM
I have Pentax film camera, and I love it. NO electronics. NO battery in the exposure (I set it by manually by eye).
It takes the best pictures ever. No comparison.:thumbsup:

kenlee
07-06-2011, 10:47 PM
^At the local deli one lunchtime, a group of 6th graders from the school up the street were hanging out. One boy asked the shop owner what time it was. The shop owner pointed to the big industrial Hamilton clock on the wall. The kid said, "I can't read that," then asked his friends if anyone had a phone so he could check the time readout.

:freak:

The funniest thing I ever saw was a friend's 13 year old son trying to figure out how to use a rotary dial phone that was in his grandmother's house. This was 8 years ago and she still uses that phone.

jheilman
07-06-2011, 11:43 PM
I still own my film camera (Canon EOS 630), but haven't shot film since 2003. While it was true that film's resolution was tough to beat with a digicam, I think today's 12+ megapixel cams do that. Noise and dynamic range are issues still debated in the digital vs. film battles. But for me at least, digital wins. No film to buy. Archiving digital files instead of negatives. Quicker searches of my photo archives. All good things.

On another note, I'm sad to report that my own kids have difficulty with "regular" clocks. They studied and passed this in school, but in their day-to-day life, almost all clocks they are exposed to are digital display. The clocks they see are, cell phone, VCR, computer, microwave and oven in our house, programmable thermostat, and the desk clocks in their rooms. Kids don't wear watches much any more. They just don't see many non-digital clocks. Sad but true.

Trek Ace
07-07-2011, 12:28 AM
When was the last time you dialed a phone?

Less than ten minutes ago.

We still have two dial phones. A desk one and my wife's princess phone. We LOVE having younger friends and family over and will invite them to use the phone. They have NO idea what to do with it. It's hilarious!

scotpens
07-07-2011, 01:11 AM
The funniest thing I ever saw was a friend's 13 year old son trying to figure out how to use a rotary dial phone that was in his grandmother's house. This was 8 years ago and she still uses that phone.I’m surprised that rotary dial phones are still compatible with today’s telephone network. Can modern switching equipment even recognize dial pulses?

. . . On another note, I'm sad to report that my own kids have difficulty with "regular" clocks. They studied and passed this in school, but in their day-to-day life, almost all clocks they are exposed to are digital display.
Every child should still learn to tell time by the “big hand/little hand” method. You never know when you’ll need to know the time and the only clock available is a round one.

. . . We still have two dial phones. A desk one and my wife's princess phone. We LOVE having younger friends and family over and will invite them to use the phone. They have NO idea what to do with it. It's hilarious!
How young? I can understand small kids and maybe teenagers not knowing how to use a dial phone. But you’d think adults would at least have seen people dialing the phone in old movies and TV shows.

Hmmm . . . a bit of topic drift, wouldn’t you say? :)

jheilman
07-07-2011, 01:14 AM
Haven't had a rotary phone for more than 20 years. I actually don't remember when my parents replaced their last one. I'm sure I was still living at home which would be the 80's.

John P
07-07-2011, 07:45 AM
Heck, I even remember when we said the exchange letters for the phone number prefix, rather than just the numbers. We were on the Federal exchange, so our number started "FE7-". Some of my friends were on the Twinbrook exchange, "TW1-". I'm still on the Federal exchange, but we just say "337-" now.

Just Plain Al
07-07-2011, 08:56 AM
Yeah, MOhawk8 here. My Dad still uses a rotary phone too, only thing he has trouble with are a few voice mail systems.

Trek Ace
07-07-2011, 10:40 AM
I’m surprised that rotary dial phones are still compatible with today’s telephone network. Can modern switching equipment even recognize dial pulses?


Every child should still learn to tell time by the “big hand/little hand” method. You never know when you’ll need to know the time and the only clock available is a round one.


How young? I can understand small kids and maybe teenagers not knowing how to use a dial phone. But you’d think adults would at least have seen people dialing the phone in old movies and TV shows.

Hmmm . . . a bit of topic drift, wouldn’t you say? :)

Thirty-somethings and younger, usually.

Back on topic.

I was curious as to how the Blu-ray versions of these particular episodes would appear. Upon returning home with the second season set last winter, I promptly put on two of the videotaped episodes, "Night of the Meek" and "Long-Distance Call".

I was quite pleased with the look of the transfers. Obviously, some sort of "uprezzing" took place. The episodes still maintain their "live video" look, but the re-scaling artifacts are at a minimum, and the resultant image is quite pleasing. There are still the tell-tale artifacts from the original video image present: ringing (subtle ghosting around edges) is still present, as well as a few dropouts here and there. But, overall, these particular episodes look quite nice on an HD display. While the images on these episodes can never truly be "HD", the picture is free of the pitfalls of CBS Home Video's attempt at uprezzing the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" with it's interlacing artifacts. While the video-sourced picture can never match the quality of a filmed episode in appearance, there is something unique and very fitting with these particular videotaped episodes that may have been lost if they had been shot on film.

Nice effort on Image's part for doing a great job on these episodes presentation on Blu-ray.

Zorro
07-07-2011, 11:26 AM
... there is also something to be said for the different "energy" of a "live-to-tape" performance - which is why I think "The Night of The Meek" in particular shines so well. Watching that episode is like watching a well rehearsed play on opening night. While some of the other taped TZ episodes appear to have been more heavily edited, "The Night of the Meek" feels completely live - start-to-finish.

http://www.daf.com.ar/shared/blog/twilight/meek.jpg

Krel
07-07-2011, 10:54 PM
I still own my film camera (Canon EOS 630), but haven't shot film since 2003. While it was true that film's resolution was tough to beat with a digicam, I think today's 12+ megapixel cams do that. Noise and dynamic range are issues still debated in the digital vs. film battles. But for me at least, digital wins. No film to buy. Archiving digital files instead of negatives. Quicker searches of my photo archives. All good things.


Nice, that is until you go to download the images from the chip, and the computer tells you that there are no images on the chip. I know people that has happened to. They reviewed the photos on the camera display, but the chip read empty.

Of course film cameras aren't perfect. I once took a lot of photos only to find that I didn't load the camera correctly, and the film didn't catch and feed! :lol:

But I still prefer the quality of film to digital. Although I will admit that the quality of the printer probably has a lot to do with it.

A few months back there was an article in the locl paper that told how to archive digital photos. You copy the images to a hard drive. Then to a thumb drive. Also to a cd. You then keep the chip, and don't reuse it. Finally you print the photos. :beatdeadhorse:

With my 35mm all I need is my negatives. Although I do scan them for the fun of it. I don't rely on digital storage because I'm still not sure about the longevity of digital storage.

Uncle Sam archives photo on film. Written documents on acid free paper, and audio on 78 rpm records. Hollywood has be having trouble with the media used to store movies recorded with digital cameras. The top archival company transfers them to film.

Back in the 70s, I had a few digital watches. The only one I really liked was the Casio Twin-Graph. But I switched back to a digital by 1980, I find I can tell time better with one. Both my niece and nephew were given analog watches.

David.

jheilman
07-08-2011, 12:08 AM
Digital storage can fail, that's true. But, film processing can fail as well. I once took a trip to Washington D.C. Shot several rolls of KodaChrome including the Vietnam memorial. When they came back from Kodak processing, two of the three rolls were ruined. Film can be accidentally exposed, eaten by processors, etc. There is risk in both methods.

I have all photos archived on two mirrored terrabyte drives as well as written to Taiyo Yuden DVDs. They are ranked very high for archival quality. That's the brand used by the national archives. But, it's true that the data should be rewritten periodically to be safe. They used to say that CDR was good for 100 years. I have some CDs written 15 years ago that are unreadable today. But, they were very cheap no-name brands. Live and learn.

zike
07-08-2011, 01:08 AM
With my 35mm all I need is my negatives. Although I do scan them for the fun of it. I don't rely on digital storage because I'm still not sure about the longevity of digital storage.


David.

If you've been around long enough or if you've had access to dad's old negatives and slides, you might have second thoughts. Many (most) of the slides I shot in 1970s have some kind of fungus damage. Most have some color shift. It may be minor now but it leads me to believe that the long term prospects are not good.

My B&W negatives from that era are good. But I've had access to negatives from the 1940s which are very badly damaged by fungus and stuff from the 50s and 60s is showing early stages of the problems. Emulsion is, after all, an organic compound.

The thing about digital is that we can continuously update the format and storage method. Something shot as RAW to a Compact Flash card in 2002 might be burned onto a Blu-ray Disc (which didn't even exist in 2002) as a TIFF file. No fungus no fading, no color shift, no dirt. The same now as it was a decade ago.

Do I think my big HDDs full of pictures will be readable in 30 years? Probably not in their current formats on their current media. But as formats and media evolve, they will be easily copied to the new standards. And they should look the same in 2041 as they do today. By then, my slides from the 1970's will be
faded, dirtied, and damaged beyond repair.

jheilman
07-08-2011, 01:31 AM
Exactly. The preservation may take a few more steps, but if it's digital, and you make enough backup copies, the original is preserved intact. Film negs and slides deteriorate over time. KodaChrome is possibly the best archival color format, but it's not eternal. B&W is far more stable, but I'd prefer to have a huge scan off the film that I can put in several locations and guard for my lifetime.

I wish I had a decent 35mm scanner. I'd go through all my film and scan everything. For now, they exist in archival pages in binders in a fire safe. Hope they don't fade too much.

John P
07-08-2011, 07:43 AM
My great-grandpa's glass plate negatives from the 1890s-1920s are in reasonably good shape. Some emulsion is flaking off. One or two are pretty shot. I scanned them to preserve them, printed them on nice glossy stock, and sent them to a couple of local historical societies.
http://www.inpayne.com/family/granpaspix/gppix.html

Still almost perfect:

http://www.inpayne.com/family/granpaspix/gp001.jpg

Flaking:
http://www.inpayne.com/family/granpaspix/gp022.jpg

Serious flaking:

http://www.inpayne.com/family/granpaspix/gp010.jpg

zike
07-08-2011, 10:06 AM
John, even the "almost perfect" picture is subject to a person's interpretation of almost perfect. When I look at the sky in that image, I see a lot of damage. Because the rest of the picture has a lot of varying details, I assume it likely shares the same kind of damage but it's hidden in the various shades, shadows and highlights.

If done properly, digital files really can be preserved in a manner where there really is no deterioration at all.

One thing I'll add is that digital preservation also provides protection against that most common of photographic enemies. Just plain dirt is a big nuisance. Slides and negs can't be sealed up 100% of the time if we want to see them. A few years ago, I scanned some Kodachrome for the mid 1980's. I'm pleased to say that it was in wonderful shape with excellent color and no obvious damage. But there was clearly noticeable dirt on the slides. Some of that dirt was probably just surface deposits but some may have embedded itself in the emulsion. It would be a big cleaning job if that slide was to be projected or printed. I spent some time to digitally clean the slides by photoshopping out all the little bits of dirt. Now, I can look at those pictures anytime and the sky's are crystal clear. Even if I sneeze on the monitor, the pictures are perfect :).

For the sake of being on topic, let me say that I own all four seasons of The Twilight Zone so far relased on Blu-ray. The fifth season should be out next month I think. The shows look amazing. One unusual aspect to look for in regards to the videotaped episodes is that they are encoded at 1080i rather than the 1080p of the filmed episodes. I just mention that for the sake of contributing something properly on topic.

Zorro
07-08-2011, 10:32 AM
One unusual aspect to look for in regards to the videotaped episodes is that they are encoded at 1080i rather than the 1080p of the filmed episodes. I just mention that for the sake of contributing something properly on topic.

Makes perfect sense from a "video" perspective. Is that info on the box or did you determine this some other way?

kdaracal
07-08-2011, 11:40 AM
I prefer talking rings..............especially if Weena helps me spin them.


http://www.shelf-awareness.com/files/1/shelf-awareness/411/pa/SA%20content%202011/talkingrings061011.jpg

zike
07-08-2011, 11:58 AM
Makes perfect sense from a "video" perspective. Is that info on the box or did you determine this some other way?

Multiple sources starting with the box.

Season 2 (with the videotaped episodes) has the only packaging that says, "Main Feature 1080p High Definition 1.33:1, 1080i High Definition 1.33:1". The other seasons just say "Main Feature 1080p High Definition 1.33:1".

I also noticed the 1080i reference in a review.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3801/twilightzone_1960_s2.html

Finally, to satisfy my curiosity, I checked the on-screen display of my TV set which shows the type of video input and it confirmed the 1080i for the taped episodes.

Zorro
07-08-2011, 12:24 PM
Multiple sources starting with the box.

Season 2 (with the videotaped episodes) has the only packaging that says, "Main Feature 1080p High Definition 1.33:1, 1080i High Definition 1.33:1". The other seasons just say "Main Feature 1080p High Definition 1.33:1".

I also noticed the 1080i reference in a review.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3801/twilightzone_1960_s2.html

Finally, to satisfy my curiosity, I checked the on-screen display of my TV set which shows the type of video input and it confirmed the 1080i for the taped episodes.

Cool. I am currently working on a video/film inventory/archive of over 20,000 assets dating back to 1955. I love reading about this kind of stuff.

roadskare63
07-08-2011, 11:01 PM
About four years ago I was at the Village at Disney World right after Thanksgiving. The place was very crowded, and as I walked through the crowd, I heard the most mind twisting comment I had ever heard. I heard this woman clap her hands and say: "Everybody gather around so I can take a picture with my phone". :freak:

I was able to blow a lot of peoples minds when they observed that I was using a 35mm camera. "LooK! He's got a FILM camera"! :lol: I will be using my K1000 as long as they keep making film.

David.


have had my pentax k1000 since 1981 when i went off to art school...still use it from time to time...just gotta make sure the button battery is fresh:wave:

John P
07-09-2011, 08:36 AM
Me, I'm delighted with my DSLR. My friends and I used to say if we got one really good, memorable picture out of a roll of 36, it was well worth the cost of film and processing.

What, were we NUTS?! :lol:

Now I shoot all I want, save the good ones, delete the crap, and put the "film" (flash card) back in the camera for reuse.

sbaxter
07-09-2011, 02:59 PM
About four years ago I was at the Village at Disney World right after Thanksgiving. The place was very crowded, and as I walked through the crowd, I heard the most mind twisting comment I had ever heard. I heard this woman clap her hands and say: "Everybody gather around so I can take a picture with my phone". :freak:The iPhone 4 recently surpassed the Nikon D90 as the most popular camera on Flickr, at least in terms of number of images posted from a particular model. In fact, there's a lot of talk -- and fear among camera companies -- that the point-and-shoot camera market is rapidly dying because people can get most of the same photos from their phones, especially as the quality of camera-phones increases. And the iPhone 4 has a particularly good camera for such a device. In addition, smart phones offer a multitude of convenient and easy-to-use apps for enhancing and altering photos, which also increases their popularity. Why carry a phone and a P&S camera when you can get 90 percent of the same results from one device -- especially if snapshots are all you're after anyway?

Qapla'

SSB

Chrisisall
07-09-2011, 03:53 PM
Pentax K1000 rules. I don't waste film. If I click- it comes out perfect 90% of the time. I delete more pix than I keep with my digital.:thumbsup:

John P
07-09-2011, 04:08 PM
The iPhone 4 recently surpassed the Nikon D90 as the most popular camera on Flickr, at least in terms of number of images posted from a particular model. In fact, there's a lot of talk -- and fear among camera companies -- that the point-and-shoot camera market is rapidly dying because people can get most of the same photos from their phones, especially as the quality of camera-phones increases. And the iPhone 4 has a particularly good camera for such a device. In addition, smart phones offer a multitude of convenient and easy-to-use apps for enhancing and altering photos, which also increases their popularity. Why carry a phone and a P&S camera when you can get 90 percent of the same results from one device -- especially if snapshots are all you're after anyway?

Qapla'

SSB

For snapshots, I guess that does make sense. I can't imagine one this little bitty phone cameras beating out great big interchangeable lenses.

Krel
07-09-2011, 05:03 PM
I'm not really against digital, I just don't trust the storage medium yet. Neither does the U.S. Government, anything they want to keep is put onto physical media. Like I wrote before, the movie studios are archiving their digitally photographed movies onto film because the digital media is failing. If they ever come up with a stable method, I'll be there with bells on.

B&w last longer than color negatives because color uses vegetable dyes which fade over time. The photos and negatives I have from the 70s on look fine, but I take care of them. I keep them out of the light, and in a stable environment.

I'm picky about what I shoot, and so don't really waste film. Or maybe I'm just not that choosy about my photos. :lol:

I have read that cdr's have a life of eight to twelve years, the same for the dvdr's. That is because they are burned, and cds/dvds are pressed. That is why I don't understand people paying about thirty dollars for the on demand dvdrs. They won't last that long.

David.

John P
07-09-2011, 05:30 PM
That reminds me - time to backup my files again.
My habit of keeping multiple backups paid off again a couple months ago when I got a killer virus. I wasn't too upset, 'cause I had my 15 years worth of stuff on two backups - on hard drive, one solid state drive, plus my whole website backed up there, on a datastick, and on my computer at work.

Chrisisall
07-09-2011, 06:11 PM
I have read that cdr's have a life of eight to twelve years, the same for the dvdr's. That is because they are burned, and cds/dvds are pressed.

Wait- so my DVD's will last as long as they don't get physically damaged, but my DVR's will tank someday no matter what? Is that it? Can you get your DVR's transferred by a company somewhere so they last into your next incarnation (assuming you come out human next time, can remember your past life, and your kids/grand kids haven't tossed out all your stuff...)?

zike
07-09-2011, 06:29 PM
I'm not really against digital, I just don't trust the storage medium yet. ...If they ever come up with a stable method, I'll be there with bells on.


What is "the" storage medium? There are dozen of different ways to store digital data.

In fact, a stable method does exist. At least, it's infinitely more stable than organic film emulsion.

The stable method is simply making multiple copies and rewriting them every few years. Storage is dirt cheap. $100.00 buys you a couple of terabytes. I copy my photos onto three drives. That's to say, ALL of my photos are on each drive. So if one get's hits by lightning and a meteor strikes another one, I still have them all on a third drive. And when I retire one drive, I write everything to a new drive.

I don't understand the idea of letting film emulsion slowly break down while you wait for something else.

And if, heaven forbid, I should be required to evacuate due to natural disaster or bid a hasty retreat for whatever reason, I can reach over to unplug an external HDD and put it in my pocket. In 30 seconds I can walk out of the house with 20,000 photos taken over the last ten years. And I keep the retired drives (functional but full or older) at work so if the house burns down, the photos still exist. Digital is really ideal.

Zorro
07-10-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm not really against digital, I just don't trust the storage medium yet. Neither does the U.S. Government, anything they want to keep is put onto physical media. Like I wrote before, the movie studios are archiving their digitally photographed movies onto film because the digital media is failing. If they ever come up with a stable method, I'll be there with bells on.


I have read that cdr's have a life of eight to twelve years, the same for the dvdr's. That is because they are burned, and cds/dvds are pressed. That is why I don't understand people paying about thirty dollars for the on demand dvdrs. They won't last that long.

David.

Could you provide some links on both of these issues? Thanks!