Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-20-2014, 01:40 PM   #76
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,807
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think you're right. It's kinda like saving money, a lot of people don't see the need until it's getting too late.

For my part I don't have all the answers either, I'm wondering what external media and cloud vendors to 'bet on', and I'm left with a nagging suspicion that I may be eternally grateful to my wife's parents who have bothered to print 1000's of 4x6's and 5x7's of my family. I obviously don't plan on relying on those prints alone, but they're a good back up plan in case all my high-minded digital archive efforts fail.
I've inadvertently lost images I mean to keep during clean-up etc. It's a lot harder to do that with hard copy images. You have to want to get rd of them. With hard drives, you sometimes don't know you've deleted the image, until you look for it 6 months later. And by then there's no hope.

10-20-2014, 01:48 PM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The best way to "future proof" your images is to print them. I hope no one thinks that the majority of images taken today will still be around in ten years. The issue isn't whether or not they are viewable on a 5K screen, it is whether or not they'll just be in some sort of format and retrievable.
Have you been reading Ken Rockwell again? You know that isn't good for your knowledge base.

If an idiot like me can take 1's and 0's from a DNG, JPG or TIF, and turn them into pixels, then I think pretty much anybody can. There will be no problem reading your currently-stored-as DNG, TIF, or JPG files in 30 years. Perhaps in 20 years you'll batch convert them to another format.

Windows 3.0 had bmp's. Probably earlier versions, too. Those bmp's are now old enough to be elected to Congress now. 25 years ago...

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've inadvertently lost images I mean to keep during clean-up etc. It's a lot harder to do that with hard copy images. You have to want to get rd of them. With hard drives, you sometimes don't know you've deleted the image, until you look for it 6 months later. And by then there's no hope.
Some people do tape drives. Personally I think hard drives are cheap enough that you can do dead storage on them.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:51 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
At least in the "old days," people had negatives (which last a long time) and some prints, that maybe their kids would happen on in a shoe box when they were cleaning out a closet, but now there won't be anything but a CD or a DVD that will likely just get pitched in the garbage.
When I exit this mortal coil, someone might reformat my hard drives if they think the hard drive is worth saving. They'll pitch the older ones.
10-20-2014, 01:54 PM   #78
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Have you been reading Ken Rockwell again? You know that isn't good for your knowledge base.

If an idiot like me can take 1's and 0's from a DNG, JPG or TIF, and turn them into pixels, then I think pretty much anybody can. There will be no problem reading your currently-stored-as DNG, TIF, or JPG files in 30 years. Perhaps in 20 years you'll batch convert them to another format.

Windows 3.0 had bmp's. Probably earlier versions, too. Those bmp's are now old enough to be elected to Congress now. 25 years ago...

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:49 PM ----------



Some people do tape drives. Personally I think hard drives are cheap enough that you can do dead storage on them.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 01:51 PM ----------



When I exit this mortal coil, someone might reformat my hard drives if they think the hard drive is worth saving. They'll pitch the older ones.
Wow. You have a mean streak. If you read my response to Jay, my concern has more to do with files getting lost, hard drives giving up the ghost, DVDs getting corrupted, etc. I am sure jpegs will be around for a long time. But thanks for claiming that I get my information from Rockwell.
10-20-2014, 01:59 PM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Wow. You have a mean streak... thanks for claiming that I get my information from Rockwell.
He says the same thing. I apologize, it was a low blow.

QuoteOriginally posted by kenRockwell:
With digital raw files, good luck finding software to read it in 10 years


10-20-2014, 02:07 PM   #80
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,213
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think you're right. It's kinda like saving money, a lot of people don't see the need until it's getting too late.

For my part I don't have all the answers either, I'm wondering what external media and cloud vendors to 'bet on', and I'm left with a nagging suspicion that I may be eternally grateful to my wife's parents who have bothered to print 1000's of 4x6's and 5x7's of my family. I obviously don't plan on relying on those prints alone, but they're a good back up plan in case all my high-minded digital archive efforts fail.
I live in a pretty rural area and my upload speeds are lousy, so I don't upload many photos to the cloud (certainly not RAW files). I back things up by burning blue ray disks of my photos and also having external hard drives that I back them up to. But I don't feel good about it.
10-20-2014, 02:18 PM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
I used to keep a stack of DVD's at a relative's house. I changed to an external hard drive.

For me the cloud was ungodly expensive. I'm at ~3TB of data right now.
10-20-2014, 02:33 PM   #82
Site Supporter
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,177
Hard drives are cheap but they will fail; it's a matter of when, not if. You need a backup of the backup. Cloud storage will eventually catch up in terms of capacity but one really should have at least 2 physically separate stores; one on premises, preferably a redundant array of some sort and another in the cloud or at least at a physically different location. Microsoft, Google and Apple are probably safe bets for cloud storage. There are a lot of smaller players in the business but I wouldn't trust my data to them for more than short term storage.
10-20-2014, 02:43 PM   #83
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,807
QuoteOriginally posted by dakight Quote
Hard drives are cheap but they will fail; it's a matter of when, not if. You need a backup of the backup. Cloud storage will eventually catch up in terms of capacity but one really should have at least 2 physically separate stores; one on premises, preferably a redundant array of some sort and another in the cloud or at least at a physically different location. Microsoft, Google and Apple are probably safe bets for cloud storage. There are a lot of smaller players in the business but I wouldn't trust my data to them for more than short term storage.
Apple was a safe bet for my websites, and image sharing pages for photos, until they decided to cancel the service. Thanks to the huge number of files I entrusted them with, I never did completely rescue everything I had stored there.... once burned....

It wasn't their fault I lost many of my original files, but it is their fault I couldn't manage to re-aquire the web sized images I stored in my idisk. They just never backed up properly regardless of what I tried.

10-20-2014, 02:56 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by dakight Quote
Hard drives are cheap but they will fail; it's a matter of when, not if. You need a backup of the backup. Cloud storage will eventually catch up in terms of capacity but one really should have at least 2 physically separate stores; one on premises, preferably a redundant array of some sort and another in the cloud or at least at a physically different location. Microsoft, Google and Apple are probably safe bets for cloud storage. There are a lot of smaller players in the business but I wouldn't trust my data to them for more than short term storage.
Ah... yup. Personally I have offsite backup, onsite backup, and a RAID.

Haven't had a hard drive fail since ~2002 but I have had RAIDs go kerfluey.
10-20-2014, 04:54 PM   #85
Senior Member
Paul MaudDib's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess between hard drive crashes, DVD failures, etc, I am not convinced that people will be able to access their photos in the long run. I know people who had all a years worth of snaps on a couple of memory cards only to have one of them go bad, thereby losing a large percentage of their photos. Probably folks on the forum are a lot more compulsive about backing photos up in multiple ways (hard drives, cloud, blue ray disks), but in general, I think technology has tended to make people's photos more tenuous.
That's what Amazon Glacier is for, honestly. They dump your upload to cold storage (some kind of tape, I suspect) in multiple locations. As long as you keep paying the bill you're pretty much safe in practical terms. And it's 1/3 the price of space on their live servers ($0.01 per gb per month). It's still too expensive to store all 3000 of your rejected photos, but if you only upload after you've selected the keepers it's not too bad.

It's even cheaper than putting it on tapes yourself. Even ignoring the $2500 for the drive, 2.5TB tapes are $50 a pop so you're looking at $0.02 per GB.

I've experienced bitrot in my DVD backups. As the density increases (eg Bluray) the odds get even higher. Nowadays I burn a DVDisaster error recovery file to the next disc. Costs me 15% of my disc capacity but I stand at least a chance of recovering data. I also no longer use sharpies - the solvent can penetrate through the plastic over time and damage the reflective data layer. Get an archival pen at your local photo store. Also, burn as slow as you can - the faster you burn, the faster the disc spins, the shorter the exposure time. That translates into less energy is directed into each pit, which means a "less contrasty" data track that is more susceptible to bit-rot.

Also yeah, RAID is good too, for your hot storage.

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 10-20-2014 at 08:27 PM.
10-20-2014, 06:37 PM   #86
Site Supporter
dakight's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,177
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Ah... yup. Personally I have offsite backup, onsite backup, and a RAID.

Haven't had a hard drive fail since ~2002 but I have had RAIDs go kerfluey.


I had a hard drive failure just last week. I have had individual drives within a RAID fail but never the whole array. My preference is for mirrored drives in a network attached appliance. With terabyte drives going at less that $50 there's no reason not to have adequate storage. Even a USB mini-drive is better than nothing.


Mechanical and electronic devices fail and Murphy is still very much alive and well. If you have no backup or even only 1 level of backup, you are sitting on a ticking timebomb.
10-20-2014, 07:23 PM   #87
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Now you tell me

QuoteOriginally posted by paul mauddib Quote
i also no longer use sharpies - the solvent can penetrate through the plastic over time and damage the reflective data layer. .
(&^%%()&^%#%*&&%

.

---------- Post added 10-20-14 at 09:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
4) Will allow for... "more" PP. I say "more" because I can't think of a better adjective right now, but it allows you more NR and sharpening at the same time, for example. I found my D800 images more fun to play with than my D700 images. More data = more play.

Also, something that you can't determine by reading specs, you have to see it - the same 'amount' of noise in higher MP images looks better, even if there's just as much of it. Finer grained, bringing more detail, more pleasing-looking images.

.
I have my own examples of this ^^ (#4) as well, but here's Lee Jay's, which are presented better:

10-21-2014, 04:25 AM   #88
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Nebraska
Photos: Albums
Posts: 789
QuoteOriginally posted by Paul MaudDib Quote
Sure, there are certainly technologies further out on the horizon that will be better, agreed. Right now you can buy a 4K monitor for $500 - Dell just launched a 5K monitor at $2500. In three years it will probably be down to reasonable prices, that's about how long it took 4K to get cheap enough to be a plausible purchase.

And if 8K is going to be a high-end professional system in 2020, then it either doesn't exist right now or it's an exorbitently expensive I'm not a cine expert, so I can't say, but brand-new tech easily runs into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whereas you can pick up an A7S and shoot 4K for $2100 right now. A bird in hand is worth two birds in 2025 when the technology finally trickles down to consumer gear.

Like always, there's a point of diminishing returns for your budget. Right now 4K is the "good enough" point, IMO. Reasonably full featured, future proof, reasonably priced. Comparing apples to apples (display size, etc) you don't really save anything by buying an equivalent, new 1080p TV. And if an extra $150 breaks your monitor budget, what you really want is a $100 refurb 1080p panel, not a brand new $300 1080p panel.

In another year or two I think 4K TVs will make up the majority of TVs sold, especially once content starts to become readily available in 4K. I think within the next year or so we start to see heavy markdowns on 1080p gear to try and clear out inventory.
Apple just released the new IMac with a 5k resolution for their 27in screen. Their 1080p monitors are amazing, so I can only imagine how great it will be!
10-21-2014, 05:57 AM   #89
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,861
50MP sensor would bring along all sorts of problems. The SR would have to be fine tuned, the lenses would need to be improved (coatings, materials, will not be cheap and might necessitate bigger lenses), CPU would have to be faster, buffer bigger, cards would need to allow faster write speeds as well as more space.. even computers would struggle - how many of us would have to buy new hard drives, faster computers to deal with 50MP raw photos?
We can see that with the Nikon 36MP it already struggled with the previously mentioned things, but is still manageable (even if it requires steadier hands). If you look at K-3 files they already feature so much detail and resolution.. unless they are making massive prints that will be viewed from close up, or cropping a lot, i can't imagine who would need 50MP. Except maybe the marketing department, to show consumers of the ignorant variety that "we are winning the MP war!"
10-21-2014, 07:48 AM   #90
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,807
QuoteOriginally posted by zbrueningsen Quote
Apple just released the new IMac with a 5k resolution for their 27in screen. Their 1080p monitors are amazing, so I can only imagine how great it will be!
If Apple is doing it then it's done right.... no splitting video cards and using two. Usually within a year or so someone else will catch up. Unfortunately a decent editing system...

Base system 2499
i7 -4.4Ghz 250
16 Gb ram 200
3TB fusion 150
And if you're using Aperture...
AMD Radeon 4 GB 250

That would be an upgrade worth buying into, compared to what I have now.... only $3349. Ouch.... not going to happen.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, 50mp full frame, 645z, aps-c, camera, cameras, cards, dng, drives, ff, format, frame sensors, full-frame, hope, images, jpg, k-3 sensor, light, link, memory, mp, pentax, sensor, sony, sony 50mp, tif, website
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photokina 2014: Ricoh confirm full frame camera is coming in 2015 Mistral75 Pentax News and Rumors 671 01-29-2015 08:45 AM
Full Frame in 2015 fwbigd Pentax Full Frame 90 10-24-2014 04:41 PM
Fuji will release a Full Frame X-PRO 2 in 2015! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 8 04-06-2014 10:24 AM
Sony Full Frame mirrorless prototypes still being tested, coming in mid 2014 jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 02-17-2013 10:31 AM
Sony Mirrorless Full Frame coming Winder Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 12-21-2012 11:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top