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  July 2013

ARSCLIST July 2013

Subject:

Re: NYT film archiving article

From:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:20:52 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (61 lines)

I've got Grundmans remastered Everest Khachaturian "Gayne", and on previous playings didn't notice anything too glaring.  What have been the complaints?  My only one is that I can't play seem to play the three channel DVD on my Sony Blu-Ray, it doesn't recognize a "Title Set 2" selection from any menu that I've looked for.

________________________________
 From: Jamie Howarth <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYT film archiving article
 

We have done a lot of vinegar mag feature film work. Many "unplayable" but every one came out fine.
Not been approached on any music biz 35s. 
Grundmans was doing Everest transfers but their guy didn't get it.

Please pardon the misspellings and occassional insane word substitution I'm on an iPhone

On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Randy:
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this:
> 
>> Certainly the Mercury/Everest experience with 35mm audio should be evidence
>> enough to support my criticism that the comparison is severely flawed. What
>> do the rest of you think?
> 
> In the case of Mercury's 35mm magnetic film masters, whatever wasn't digitized in the 1990s (when all of the existing films were playable, as demonstrated by the sound quality of the 1990s CD remasters) didn't EXIST anymore. It's not a matter of "things not being transferred." Inept management at Polygram/Philips in the 1970s and perhaps the 1980s ordered some 35mm destroyed, and other appear to have been forever lost (assumed destroyed) by the contracted warehouse-storage companies. During the CD remastering project's 10-year span, exhaustive and never-ending efforts were made by Polygram vault/library personnel all over the world to find any and all Mercury Living Presence tapes. Under early Universal-era management, all of those tapes were assembled at the vault operations of Berliner Studios in Hanover Germany. That vault has since been outsourced to a unit of BMG, and I think it is at a different physical location in Germany now. I do not know if
 every single cache to former Polygram tapes in the world is now assembled in Germany, but I do think that every Mercury tape or film that existed in the 1990s did end up in one place.
> 
> The ineptitude of former Polygram management to order the destruction of films and tapes (presumably to save on storage costs, likely on stern orders from the bean-counters in Holland), is worth a whole other discussion. But, it occured before the possibility of digital backup, so it is irrelevant to the topics of the NYT article.
> 
> As for Everest, Mark Jenkins may choose to comment on that. As I understand it, the Everest films were damaged from poor warehouse storage conditions, long before the era of digital audio. Furthermore, despite the damage, many or all of the films survived to be successfully transferred to high-rez digital in recent years.
> 
> -- Tom Fine
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Lane" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:35 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] NYT film archiving article
> 
> 
>> This NYT article pointing out a very high cost of digital storage vs.
>> traditional/legacy/non-digital storage has become the subject of discussion
>> on another forum:
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?_r=1&
>> 
>> From reading the article though, I don't see any evidence that the "cost"
>> of traditional/legacy/non-digital storage includes the cost of maintaining
>> the proper playback equipment. As we well know studios don't typically make
>> that attempt. But given that the cost of digital storage as profile in the
>> article includes migration to replacement storage media when existing
>> media/drives/systems/etc.. reach their end-of-life and the potential access
>> problems as digital formats evolve, including the cost of maintaining
>> equipment to support full retrieval of traditional/legacy/non-digital
>> archives seems like a no-brainer.
>> 
>> Certainly the Mercury/Everest experience with 35mm audio should be evidence
>> enough to support my criticism that the comparison is severely flawed. What
>> do the rest of you think?
>> 

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

December 2020
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