LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2007

ARSCLIST May 2007

Subject:

Re: Mass Digitization

From:

Rob Poretti <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 15 May 2007 19:32:04 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (333 lines)

There would certainly be numerous technology possibilities here - automation, meta-data,
work-flow, storage systems, etc...

Something for everyone!

Rob Poretti
Sascom - Toronto
vox.905.825.5373    fax.905.469.1129     cel.905.580.2467
www.sascom.com    www.cube-tec.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcos Sueiro
> Sent: May 15, 2007 2:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Mass Digitization
> 
> 
> It seems to me that a "Mass Digitisation" panel/session would 
> be a good 
> thing for our next conference. Perhaps someone could update 
> us on things 
> like SAMMA, the PrestoSpace project, and things of that sort. 
> I agree, 
> it really is the only way to go.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marcos
> 
> Andes, Donald wrote:
> >  
> > Jim,
> > 
> > Let me add a positive retort here, (before the waves of 
> negative ones 
> > begin)....
> > 
> > I agree with you 100% that most in the archival world are 
> focusing on 
> > the wrong issues, or maybe have been lingering on the same problems 
> > for too long. The issue in my mind is scale because most in the 
> > archival industry are seeing a box, or room full of tapes, and have 
> > not had the opportunity to see over 1 million assets in a single 
> > location, nor contemplated what to do with them.
> > 
> > As the Director of Archives for EMI, I look at all the 
> assets under my 
> > control (over 1 million, just in North America), and think 
> to myself: 
> > "How much sense does it make to preserve these assets in these 
> > formats, when the machines, engineer knowledge base, and 
> media itself 
> > if deteriorating."
> > 
> > Once you scale out and see the big picture, you start to see the 
> > REALLY big problem. If we (the archival industry) can't get a 
> > digitization schema to be cost effective, we simply won't get the 
> > funds to digitize. Worse, if someone outside the archival industry, 
> > gets "their" plans in motion, you can rest assure that it 
> will not be 
> > done anywhere near correct.
> > 
> > As you know, the barriers to digital migration are also far more 
> > complex than the real time transfer that it involves (even if we're 
> > using SAMMA
> > "robots".) Digital files take error checking, redundant 
> copies, naming
> > conventions, metadata collection, metadata hierarchy standards, etc.
> > Figuring all this out UP FRONT, makes for a daunting task 
> that I will
> > venture to say, takes a completely different skill/mind set 
> than analog.
> > Unfortunately people don't change, and no matter how many positive
> > reasons you give to migrate, those entrenched in analog will want to
> > stay there.
> > 
> > I believe there should be communal, parallel thinking in regards to 
> > mass digitization strategies, metadata collection and so 
> forth. I am 
> > aware of library groups focusing specifically on metadata, 
> but I have 
> > my own concern with their focus, and priorities in regards to 
> > collecting metadata on A/V assets.
> > 
> > I'm available for dialog on this topic, and I would hope 
> that others 
> > on the list may open minded enough as well.
> > 
> > 
> > Don Andes
> > Director of Archives
> > EMI Music
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > The point is that Analog is over, and the sooner we get to 
> the really 
> > hard job of developing cost effective mass migration techniques to 
> > save the vast corpus the better. Now some of you may say my 
> statements 
> > are self-serving - and I will fully and freely admit that I have 
> > worked very hard to develop these techniques and have worked to 
> > commercialize them - but I do not see any other way to save the 
> > content, and I have been successful in driving the price lower and 
> > lower using new technology. But - we are just one company - and we 
> > need help - yes we need competition because THE point is to 
> save the 
> > content - and to do that - we need to be thinking differently. The 
> > problem is not how do we stop a single troublesome tape 
> from squeaking 
> > - the problem is how do we migrate the millions of recordings fast 
> > enough and cost effective enough and good enough - for the 
> future. I 
> > don't see much of that going on - and it deeply concerns 
> me. We need 
> > more people thinking this way - I want to read about 
> techniques that 
> > can be applied to thousands of tapes that will allow fast and cost 
> > effective transfer. This is something that we ALL need to work on - 
> > the collective brains and expertise on this list and others 
> needs to 
> > focus - we can differ in our individual philosophies but 
> please let us 
> > not get so distracted by esoteric un- scaleable treatments, that we 
> > forget the whole point. Which is - to save the stuff. I am 
> sad to say 
> > that collectively - all of us (including me)- have not been doing a 
> > very good job - we need to do MUCH better. We need to work 
> together - 
> > and smarter. The risk of loss is simply too great.
> > 
> > Ok - I am done - and I am running,,,,
> > 
> > Jim Lindner
> > 
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > 
> >    Media Matters LLC.
> >    SAMMA Systems LLC.
> >    450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
> >    New York, N.Y. 10001
> > 
> > eFax (646) 349-4475
> > Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> > Office: (212) 268-5528
> > 
> > www.media-matters.net
> > Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing 
> in archival 
> > audio and video material. We provide advice and analysis, to media 
> > archives that apply the beneficial advances in technology to 
> > collection management.
> > 
> > www.sammasystems.com
> > SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement 
> and optimize 
> > the advances in modern technology with established media 
> preservation 
> > and access practices.
> > 
> > 
> > On May 14, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Richard L. Hess wrote:
> > 
> >> At 07:48 AM 2007-05-14, Tom Fine wrote:
> >>> Hi Konrad:
> >>>
> >>> Some of what this guy says is simply not right about sticky-shed.
> >>> I can't comment on his "cure". I'll stick with baking 
> tapes, which is
> > 
> >>> proven to work.
> >>>
> >>> I'm hoping Richard Hess posts a long missive on this one. 
> With this
> >>> topic well-addressed many other places, I wonder why so much 
> >>> mythology persists?
> >> Hello, Tom, Konrad,
> >>
> >> Peter Brothers has posted an excellent hypothesis as to why the
> >> chemical technique may work. If we consider that the short 
> (broken) 
> >> chains which is the lower molecular weight, sticky stuff ends up 
> >> partially adsorbing to the magnetic particles when water is driven 
> >> out, then this mystery chemical could also be a water 
> "magnet" and can
> > 
> >> pull the water out of the coating allowing sites for the 
> short chains
> >> to adsorb. This is consistent with the baking process.
> >>
> >> We certainly have seen tapes suffering from binder 
> hydrolysis -- what
> >> I'm starting to call "Soft Binder Syndrome" (SBS). With non- 
> >> back-coated tapes there is a large population (not 100%, 
> but close) 
> >> that do not respond to baking. These are the SBS without SSS tapes.
> >> We used to call them "loss of lubricant" (LoL) until we found out 
> >> there was still ample lubricant in the tapes.
> >>
> >> What we are seeing with the non-back-coated tapes that 
> have SBS (and
> >> squeal) is that they are in a rubbery phase at room temperature 
> >> because the breakdown of the polymers has caused the 
> temperature at 
> >> which the surface turns from smooth to rubbery (called the GLASS 
> >> TRANSITION TEMPERATURE or Tg) has fallen to below room 
> temperature. 
> >> What we do in these cases is play the tapes with the tape and the 
> >> player below the current Tg of the tape.
> >>
> >> Measuring Tg is not easy -- you need to measure the Youngs 
> Modulus of
> >> the Coating (alone not on the basefilm) at various 
> temperatures and 
> >> from that plot you can extract the Tg.
> >>
> >> It all comes down to the tapes decaying and for all of the
> >> polyester-polyurethane tapes it appears that moisture is 
> the catalyst 
> >> for the breakdown -- hence as Peter says, it's all hydroysis.
> >>
> >> Incubation/baking appears to cause enough movement in the 
> tape pack 
> >> to
> > 
> >> break the layer-to-layer bonds that form under pressure (especially
> >> near the hub) that causes pinning and pullouts. I have 
> found that slow
> > 
> >> (1.88 in/s) playback of the tape also helps in that regard.
> >>
> >> I think our goal here is to use reliable, tested processes and
> >> digitize the content. I spent a substantial amount of 
> effort working 
> >> on tapes that squealed and did not respond to baking. My 
> cold playing 
> >> technique (which I encourage all of you to try and respond back) 
> >> should, in theory, work with SSS tape as well as SBS (and 
> I suggest 
> >> that SSS is a subset of SBS), but the massive amounts of debris 
> >> generated by the backcoat/magcoat combination overwhelms the 
> >> capability of cold playback (at least right now) and at pro play 
> >> speeds, pullout is exacerbated due to the bonding between 
> backcoat and
> > 
> >> magcoat.
> >>
> >> I do not think we've yet seen a documented case of LoL so 
> thankfully
> >> that myth is being put to bed. We used to think the squealing Sony 
> >> PR-150 and 3M 175 was LoL, but we now see that it is SBS. 
> By the way, 
> >> the Tg of one sample of 175 was about +8C or about 46F.
> >>
> >> Keeping polyester polyurethane tapes dry (<40% RH) is a good way to
> >> keep them feeling OK. I had a non-backcoated tape of this 
> type that 
> >> had been peaking at 75% RH in storage "heal" after three months 
> >> storage at about 40% RH.
> >>
> >> By the way, it is approximately a minute:day relationship between
> >> thermal and moisture equilibrium--or at least that's a 
> convenient way 
> >> to think of it. In other words if a tape takes 90 minutes to reach 
> >> thermal equilibrium throughout the pack, then it takes 90 days to 
> >> reach moisture equilibrium. This is based on work with 1- 
> inch tapes 
> >> so 1/4-inch tapes might not be as bad, but it seems to match my 
> >> experience.
> >>
> >> My AES paper cites the reference for that.
> >>
> >> In general, I am less happy with a chemical approach than a
> >> physical/state approach (within limits) to the SBS/SSS problem as 
> >> there is a great chance of unknown, long-term damage from 
> any chemical
> > 
> >> approach. With that said, I have tried approaches to SBS 
> based on the
> >> LoL hypothesis and they were abysmal failures.
> >>
> >> Konrad: we did have a belated success in your neck of the 
> woods with
> >> playing a tape in a fridge. Paul or Mike have the details. 
> I think it 
> >> needed 48 hours of cold soak before it played.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> >> Aurora, Ontario, Canada       (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> >> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
> >> contact.htm Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
> > 
> > - 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Music from EMI
> > 
> > This e-mail including any attachments is confidential and may be 
> > legally privileged. If you have received it in error please 
> advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete 
> it from your system. The unauthorised use, distribution, 
> copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. If 
> you need assistance please contact us on +44 20 7795 7000.
> > 
> > This email is from a unit or subsidiary of EMI Group plc.
> > 
> > Registered Office: 27 Wrights Lane, London W8 5SW
> > 
> > Registered in England No 229231.
> > 
> > 
> > - 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Sueiro Bal
> Audio/Moving Image Project Archivist
> Preservation Division
> Columbia University Libraries
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager