Re: Digital

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Scarpitti) writes:

> "d c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Tom Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > > You may "save" on having to buy film but you "lose" by not having a
> > > permanant, bonafide image that can be stored literally ever (i.e., is
> > > free from data corruption and media obsolescence.) Nothing is more
> > > permanant than putting and storing your images on film.
> > 
> > Huh?  Then why is the motion picture academy desperatly trying to restore
> > all those prints that are rotting in their canisters?  Yes, I know we have
> > different chemistry for film than we did in the early 20th Century, but film
> > is hardly as permanent ad binary code...
> 
> The problem was the base, not the image itself. Older motion picture
> film was coated on cellulose nitrate, which spontaneously decomposes.
> Since about 1938, cellulose acetate became available, which is much
> more stable. 

Sorry, lots of things recent enough to be on the newer stock are badly
faded.  This is discussed tangentially in Henry Wilhelm's book on
photo permanence, and has been the topic of numerous TV specials and
magazine articles over the last 20 years.  
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net>  Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>