Film Studios flub preservation and restoration.
- Dec 4, 2007 at 5:51 AM
- 3 comments
You'd think these guys would get their act together by now.
About Me
- Wa
- United States
- View my profile
- one percent of progress requires ninety-nine percent of effort.
- Google Talk:
- wa.dead.poets.society@gmail.com
Other places I haunt:
My Groups
-
twitter Updated: 7 days ago
-
5 word challenge Updated: Dec 26, 2009
-
World of Warcraft Updated: Dec 24, 2009
Neighborhood
-
electric firefly Updated: 3 minutes ago
-
HappyHacker Updated: Yesterday
-
Cat Updated: Yesterday
-
osde8info Updated: Yesterday
-
Deborah Updated: 2 days ago
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Archives
- August 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (1)
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (5)
- February 2008 (2)
- Powered by Vox
- Theme designed by Paulina Bozek
- Use this theme
Comments
I understand your point though. Once you commit to a digital rendering, and the real analog film is lost, further highest resolution rendering is impossible and you can only copy. Plus I can see how codec standards will probably evolve and change, but again there is not much we can do about that, so why not put hedge our bets and use more than one of the current top standards?
Plus, as Alex Lindsay and the TWiM guys will tell you, once you get to 4K and beyond, the improvements in performance are so marginal with each leap as to be nearly, or impossibly undetectable to the human eye.
Its kind of like music. While we might discover a standard that allows an even wider capturing of audio in a "lossless" state, there are limitations on what the average, or even the exceptional human ear can reasonably detect in a frequency range. This is why often, if we must compress, 320 kbps rendering is often suitable for most genres of music. The only form that truly suffers at that bit rate is classical and/or extreme dynamic pieces that depend upon a huge amount of headroom in the db range to explore a thematic concept more fully without fuzziness at the high end or complete loss of in the bass sub range.
I would suspect that many films will not be demanding enough on the technical side (like Harold and Maude and unlike say, 2001: A Space Odyssey) to require the absolute highest rendering possible, right?
Since you have more experience than I do in this regard, once we have the digital master, we can make more duplicate copies in order to avoid either storage failure or media degradation, right? We would just the usual backup scenarios to worry about right? And of course any changes in format standards.
Harder part of the above is how do you determine what movies you apply this to? Knowing our luck as a society we'd probably archive "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." but be like 'Shit we forgot about the Godfather.'
As far as music, I can tell the difference between 128k and Apple Lossless on my Home Theater but I'll be damned if I can tell the difference between 256k and Lossless. That's where I can't tell the difference--but I still like to think I can.