Archiving costs for FILM vs Digital at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media

The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media
Let's talk about anything media related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 23rd, 2007, 02:33 PM   #1
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
Archiving costs for FILM vs Digital

Interesting article in the NYT about a recent study on film archiving costs vs digital archiving costs.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...w2RIHXfptWiW3Q


Most people think archiving digital would be easier and cheaper than film, but it's not the case.

Among many facts likely to give decisionmakers pause, the paper
> notes that the current 2K digital cinema standard is inferior to the
> quality of 35mm film and that digital storage media have a much
> shorter lifespan than film. The yearly cost of archiving a higher-
> quality 4K master is $104.28 per running minute as compared to $8.83
> per running minute for film.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 06:17 PM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
That is to be expected. 4K cinematography is new, whereas film has been around for a century. Over time, we will develop cheaper storage methods. The need is there, so the invention will follow.
Emre Safak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 07:45 PM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
I don't doubt that technology will evolve to create 'different solutions' for archiving, but I don't have any faith in the cost going down. TWELVE times as expensive to archive the footage? Factor that in to the overall budget, and 'saving money by shooting digital' has less appeal. Oh, to be sure, it's never been about saving money, but workflow issues for the studios... but still. TWELVE TIMES the cost is amazing.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 10:14 PM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
It will go down because storage costs decrease exponentially over time.
Emre Safak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 11:17 PM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
But the point of the article is that with digital, MAINTENANCE of digital storage is much higher... and increases over time as the need to 'renew' formats increases.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2007, 09:50 AM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brookline, MA
Posts: 1,447
They too will go down as the size of the film becomes small in comparison with the size of the medium. If you can fit many films onto one disc, you can transcode them in batch. Imagine the day when they will be able to fit the entire vault onto one superdisc. Then when superdisc 2.0 comes out they will merely have to convert file formats. The rate at which storage capacity is growing far exceeds the rate at which they pump out films.
Emre Safak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2007, 10:38 AM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 1,675
Images: 1
Quote:
the current 2K digital cinema standard is inferior to the
> quality of 35mm film
Funny how most films go through a 2k digital intermediate these days anyway.
__________________
BenWinter.com
Ben Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2007, 11:15 AM   #8
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
Ben,
Yup, its a 'degradation' of the direct negative print... but most people don't know/care. It IS faster in terms of workflow, and for effects the DI is superior. Always a trade off.

Emre's assertion that technology is always getting faster/cheaper is for the most part true. Look at what money can buy in terms of storage/computer processing today compared to a decade ago.

I am NOT convinced that the 'workflow' of archival maintenance will get any cheaper however. The point of the article seems to point out to me at any rate, that its the constant CHANGE in digital mediums and shelf lives that is causing the increase in archival costs. The fact that it DOES change so quickly, and is inherently unstable (compared to film) that requires more labor intensive efforts to maintain. Simply saying - Oh it will get cheaper because it's going to change more often... doesn't make sense. And as the original paper points out, the size of digital "Films" is actually GROWING compared to film. The ammount of digital 'data' acquired in the acquisition of digital features is growing exponentially with the passing years.
Richard Alvarez is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The TOTEM Poll: Totally Off Topic, Everything Media

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network