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


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1198440524-YtE+k88xw2RIHXfptWiW3Q


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.

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.

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.

It will go down because storage costs decrease exponentially over time.

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.

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.

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.

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.