Print

Print


George, can I ask you this.  Do you work in an archive with limited space?

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:50 PM, George Brock-Nannestad <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Marie O'Connell wrote, and George comments:
>
> >
> > I really like your thinking here Eric, as I can see you have really
> > thought
> > about it and worked with it.
> >
> > As others have said, there can be problems with each method, attaching
> > like
> > 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
> > all
> > 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
> process.
>
> 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
> > the
> > 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
> > do
> > not already have a system in place and there are great resources for them
> > to
> > go to with ARSC and IASA and FACET, etc.
> >
> > cheers
> > Marie
> >
> > 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
> > reels
> > > 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
> > a
> > > 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
> > >
>