From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Marie O'Connell wrote, and George comments:
> I really like your thinking here Eric, as I can see you have really
> about it and worked with it.
> As others have said, there can be problems with each method, attaching
> with like, and documenting with leader, details, eventually the lose of a
> tape and the information if it is not well documented, etc.
> I would love to separate it all into stock parts and document that but the
> reality is....time and person power. Do we actually have the time to do
> of this? This would also involve for our archive, discussing at great
> length a new file format to deal with this as it now becomes more that one
> object. These objects have already been alloted a numbering system, as a
> single file (if they have been preserved).. Also, do we house them
> together? This also involves somehow extending the shelving, which is
> already tight, to fit the 'extra tapes' in.
----- you seem to presume (as did Mike Biel) that from one reel we get two
reels. In a world where we could store each item according to its individual
climatic requirements, this would be natural. However, why not keep it on one
reel, only shuffled according to Eric's rule (1). This would only mean to
stick end-to end that which has already been necessary work for the transfer
The question then becomes a combination of "tails out?" and "acetate or
polyester out?". I would propose SS-prone out, because that provides the
largest radius of curvature of that part of the pack.
Discussions of file format "at great length" is never expenditure, it is
investment, and you had better plan ahead.
> Archivally and considering the integrity of what we deal with, I believe
> practise is to leave it the way it is, but document it thoroughly, which I
> am sure we all hope, wish and have great hopes in, will remain in the
> metadata we are presently creating. (fingers crossed!).
----- well, the way I understand Eric is that it is already impossible to
leave it the way it is, because it has been separeted to bits in the process.
So, you could just as well be intelligent about re-assembly. And if you are
using a system in which you need to keep your fingers crossed and hope for
consistency and validity of the metadata--well, then your system is not good
enough. If you can neither authenticate nor find information as to what you
have done to the original, you could just as well discard it after having
made the documented transfer. It all comes down to trusting the person who
has performed the transfer.
> However, there are problems faced by archives and perhaps not places who
> not already have a system in place and there are great resources for them
> go to with ARSC and IASA and FACET, etc.
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:35 PM, George Brock-Nannestad
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > Hello,
> > with reference to his earlier posting
> > Subject: [ARSCLIST] Best practice: mixed acetate and polyester
> > with
> > sticky shed
> > Date sent: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:08:48 -0700
> > - and in response to several responses on the list
> > Eric Jacobs wrote:
> > ...........
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't want to persevere on the tape type too much, and
> > > would rather focus on the best way to process an acetate/polyester
> > > reel with "sticky" tape in the mix.
> > >
> > ----- Eric, people respond to what they can relate to and where they
> > believe
> > they can provide useful input. It does not appear that those who are
> > concerned with the nitty-gritty of treating tape types are necessarily
> > those
> > who have a philosophical view of what is to be done with our heritage in
> > the
> > long run. The authenticity and authentication issues I brought up in my
> > response almost never feature in preservation discussions, except in
> > forensic
> > work. Undoing splices is one of the grossest attacks on the integrity of
> > linear file (which a tape is). I remember my movie projectionist days: a
> > film
> > had split in several places and at the time you lost one frame for each
> > splice. I put the film back together for screening, and--oh, shame--a
> > sequence of a man climbing ladders to paste a huge poster was suddenly
> > showing a man rocketing and plummeting and working on several sheets at
> > once.
> > I had to take the film apart again and find the correct sequence. Losing
> > several frames.
> > Kind regards,
> > George