Stories: how to preserve?

[Lime]

have two drives, at least one that can record and one that reads,

As far as I know, my computer can read and record, but not at the same time, so I need another drive. But how do I get one, and (most important) how much would it cost?

Computers can have many drives.
Perhaps the external USB drives are the most sensible because they can be stored elsewhere easily.
However let's tackle this rather gung-ho attitude of digital records can be copied and copied without error.
They can't.
Errors are with us all the time.
What does happen is that the redundancy and error handling within a computer system gives the impression that files are copied perfectly.
Metadata is attached to files of all sorts as well as other perhaps less welcome attributes.

The method that JPEG files use is lossy.
That means that information in the detail is discarded and lost every time if they are copied by slightly different methods.
There are much better and safer forms of electronic image storage but most consume more memory, bitmap being relatively common and one of the better ones.
There are better.

However anyone who thinks they can rely on just multiple hard drives for safe keeping have not met up with a virus or worm (Downadup/Conficker Worm being the latest worry and transmitted merely by plugging a drive into a USB socket or a disc into a player) they will eventually have another think coming.

Archiving by it's very definition requires an ability to remain relatively stable over a reasonable timeframe and computers and their methods of storage are far from that yet.
To the unskilled eye a photo is just a photo but if any of you have had to consult a microfiche you will realise some peoples' idea of archiving falls far short of the ideal.

 

[skier-hughes]

However let's tackle this rather gung-ho attitude of digital records can be copied and copied without error.
They can't.
Errors are with us all the time. They may be some of the time, but not ALL of the time, most copies are error free.
What does happen is that the redundancy and error handling within a computer system gives the impression that files are copied perfectly.
Metadata is attached to files of all sorts as well as other perhaps less welcome attributes.

The method that JPEG files use is lossy.
That means that information in the detail is discarded and lost every time if they are copied by slightly different methods.
Incorrect, only if saved by different methods a copy is just that, a copy. Each time you save a jpeg, then yes, the jepg compresion will discard information, each time gradually less. Copying is just copying and you can copy a jpeg numerous times without loss of info.

There are much better and safer forms of electronic image storage but most consume more memory, bitmap being relatively common and one of the better ones.
There are better. True, but if you have a jpeg, so long as you don't resave it, only copy it, it may as well stay as a jpeg.

However anyone who thinks they can rely on just multiple hard drives for safe keeping have not met up with a virus or worm (Downadup/Conficker Worm being the latest worry and transmitted merely by plugging a drive into a USB socket or a disc into a player) they will eventually have another think coming.
But a good back up regime would have files that are saved in a place that your regular work/pc doesn't access all the time, thus being safe from virus, and someone who does make regular back-ups is more likely to ensure his pc is well protected from such as well, a bit like someone who prizes there household possesions have smoke alarms, sprinklers etc.

Archiving by it's very definition requires an ability to remain relatively stable over a reasonable timeframe and computers and their methods of storage are far from that yet.
To the unskilled eye a photo is just a photo but if any of you have had to consult a microfiche you will realise some peoples' idea of archiving falls far short of the ideal.
Working in video, the likes of youtube are a horror, but it's what people want these days, easy access anywhwre for anyone to view what they are doing, the quality is not paramount. My son has just been skiing in Finland, where he is for the next 4 months and they've been doing tricks etc, so I've been able to view just this second what he was doing an hour ago, with the aid of youtube, content being the king here, not quality.

ANyway, as I said before the best archiving process is to have your material in many forms, be it on HDD, DVD, hard copy and internet

 

[Lime]

I think it pointless arguing about what is best because time will tell.
I still have photos of my grandparents from over 90 years ago as good as they were when they were first produced.
the proof of the pudding and all that.
I doubt that many who have their photos in digital form will still have them in half that time let alone longer.

 

[skier-hughes]

Time will tell as you say, but no doubt you have your pictures well stored, how about someone who keeps them lieing around on their desk or gets them out regularly to look at them by all and sundry, there are still too many variables for hard copies, but the main thing is you have yours in a format you are happy with and I have mine in many formats which I'm happy with, who knows if a digital format was around 90 years ago, you may not be looking at your picture but viewing a nice dainty photo screen :? .

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I use separate hard drives for all my backups. They are fast, cheap (about £50/500GB = 7p for the space of a CD and 45p for the space of a DVD) and the process can be automated, so it doesn't get forgotten. Some backup software will duplicate a file as soon as it has changed, so the chance of losing a file because of a single hard drive failure can be completely eliminated.

Unless of course the reason for your hard disk failure is catastrophic - in the sense of fire/flood/etc that then takes out both hard drives in your machine, or multiple drives in different machines in the same building.

The safest way to back up electronic data is to have multiple copies on-site and off-site. Fortunately modern software, cheap disks and fast internet connections make this simple.

So why haven't got round to it?

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to assert that it's not possible to make an exact copy of digital data. Of course errors can be introduced during the copying process but that's why error-correction and verification is the norm, or is it also suggested that a computer is incapable of comparing two files for bit-level equivalence?

Yes, jpeg is a 'lossy' format, but that's completely irrelevant. Making a copy of a jpeg file does not invoke the jpeg encoding algorithm so how can it cause any further loss of information? Only the re-encoding of a jpeg image will result in a loss of information and this is not necessary for viewing or printing or copying a jpeg file.

Yes, a (b&w) photograph is known to be good for at least 90 years, but that's hardly a significant timespan in the context of data archiving is it? However, we only have the evidence of those specific photos (and other written artifacts) that have survived for that long. How many photos have faded over the years because of poor processing? How many historic documents have been lost through poor ink formulations? How many historical cinema films have been lost forever as their film stock has decayed, many within living memory? We can never know the true extent of the historic losses to date.

But we do know that the Ancient Library of Alexandria was lost for all time because there was only one copy and it was all in one place.

 

[Flyfisher]

I use separate hard drives for all my backups. They are fast, cheap (about £50/500GB = 7p for the space of a CD and 45p for the space of a DVD) and the process can be automated, so it doesn't get forgotten. Some backup software will duplicate a file as soon as it has changed, so the chance of losing a file because of a single hard drive failure can be completely eliminated.

Unless of course the reason for your hard disk failure is catastrophic - in the sense of fire/flood/etc that then takes out both hard drives in your machine, or multiple drives in different machines in the same building.

The safest way to back up electronic data is to have multiple copies on-site and off-site. Fortunately modern software, cheap disks and fast internet connections make this simple.

So why haven't got round to it?

Absolutely right. There are all manner of threats to stored data and some have nothing to do with technology. An effective backup regime must cater for all of them.

 

[Lime]

JPEG is surely old hat today, what will it be in 20 years time?

 

[Jon Maine]

JPEG is surely old hat today, what will it be in 20 years time?

That is the problem as I have had it explained to me, as simple as possible not electonically was the advice I received.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wouldn't say jpeg is 'old hat' today as there are still plenty of new digital cameras still using it, but I entirely agree that there are better (e.g. 'loss-less') image formats now available and these are bound to become more popular over time. Same with lossless audio formats that are gradually ousting MP3 etc.

Thankfully, format conversion is a trivial application for a computer, so we'll always be able to read old formats in much the same way as we can still read old books written in ancient dialects no longer used today.

So, yes, of course jpegs will be an obsolete format for new images in 20 years time (probably less) - wouldn't we all be surprised if nothing better was invented?. It's just not relevant. We'll still be able to view, print and copy a jpeg image so it remains just as valuable in its own right. Chemical photography is also rapidly becoming obsolete as well, does that diminish the value of all those old photos? Of course not.

As for "simple as possible not electronic", I don't think that really makes sense when, based on current technologies, the simplest way to build worldwide information storage and retrieval systems IS electronically. If it wasn't, the worldwide web would be based on something else.

To be honest, I think the biggest problem that future historians will have is the mind-boggling volume of information available to them.
'Tis a good job Google's on the case.

 

[MdB]

jpegs and (and I'm going out on a limb here) ANY other format for digital picture storage, past and present, will be accessible on future computer systems as the cost to do this is basically zero. I will go further and state that ANY computer program both past and present will run on the future computer systems.

The reason for my confidence in the above statements is that is basically true already today. If you can find a picture format used historically that I can't open, it would have to be very obscure or tied up in some form of DRM (Digital Rights Management). Software is a bit more problematic but I can run most programs on my computer here. Emulators are available for most historic computers enabling the software to be run.

Data loss due to obsolete storage media used to be a problem, the BBC Doomsday Project being a good example of this. Now though, no computer is built without some form of network connection so transferring data isn't an issue.

It is also worth pointing out that it takes very roughly 30 years for the computer storage levels on home computers to reach that of entire world previously. i.e. the entire worlds harddrive digital storage was 1TB in 1979. (There are various guesses in this statement so don't quote me on it..). Fancy having a 1ZB (1 Zetta Byte = 10^21 bytes) on your desktop in 2039?

As for personal backups, copy automatically to a second harddrive, preferably in a different building to the first.

 

[another_richard]

So if your data is stored on a hard drive on your pc or some off site storage, how will future inhabitants of your house make the link between the house and your storage location?

Suppose your data is stored off site and you have paid for storage for 50 years what if the holders require contact or some sort of verification?

If it is stored on a free site I am sure it will not last longer than the house has been standing.

If it is stored in house, CD, floppy, zip, dvd, hard drive (fat 16 or 32 or NTFS etc) are all bound to be obsolete when another version of windoze is released.

IMHO best thing to do is to print it all out and put it in a safe place in the house and ensure a notice is put in a prominant place (fuse box cupboard?). All the original deeds should then go to your local archive (with a small donation to them to assist with their conservation).

 

[Jon Maine]

So if your data is stored on a hard drive on your pc or some off site storage, how will future inhabitants of your house make the link between the house and your storage location?

Suppose your data is stored off site and you have paid for storage for 50 years what if the holders require contact or some sort of verification?

If it is stored on a free site I am sure it will not last longer than the house has been standing.

If it is stored in house, CD, floppy, zip, dvd, hard drive (fat 16 or 32 or NTFS etc) are all bound to be obsolete when another version of windoze is released.

IMHO best thing to do is to print it all out and put it in a safe place in the house and ensure a notice is put in a prominant place (fuse box cupboard?). All the original deeds should then go to your local archive (with a small donation to them to assist with their conservation).

That is where my thoughts lie too.

 

[MdB]

So if your data is stored on a hard drive on your pc or some off site storage, how will future inhabitants of your house make the link between the house and your storage location?

Good point, but I guess that equally applies now with paper copies. Unless they are passed from owner to owner, the info is lost. The box under the stairs seems as good a solution as any.

 

[skier-hughes]

[ how will future inhabitants of your house make the link between the house and your storage location?

Google?
Another reason why I advocate a variety of storage media.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Hats off to all those who are working so hard to preserve precious history in a variety of formats.

Anyone hear the fab Radio 4 programme just now on the lives of old Kings Cross harlots, homeless and squatters?

Note to self: contact Radio 4 in Jan 2019 to see if I can listen to those great stories again! Bet you ten quid I won't be able to.

Joce

 

[skier-hughes]

I shouldn't imagine they'll keep them, but you never know. Use listen again and record it yourself and you will.
Though I was on our local BBC radio the other day and I was away the next day, unfortunately they only keep recordings of local stuff 24 hours, so I didn't get to hear it

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Short of plonking a tape recorder next to the telly like a teenager with Top of the Pops, is there a way to record BBC iPlayer?

 

[MdB]

Short of plonking a tape recorder next to the telly like a teenager with Top of the Pops, is there a way to record BBC iPlayer?

Yes, though the BBC does what it can to stop it. Not sure of the legality - it probably comes under fair use the same as video recorders but I don't know for sure. The biggest issue is finding a piece of software that will do it that you can trust. Be careful of what you download off the internet.

 

[skier-hughes]

I've not tried with radio, but you can download tv to your pc and watch as often as you like for 1 month, then it gets deleted. There are apps, which are illegal to use, that will quite easily remove the DRM on the video for you to watch whenever you want.
I can check with radio if you like.
Graham