JamieG Analysis

I was very excited that one of my Blog posts, Now we have tapeless workflows, we still need tapes was mentioned on “This Week In Media” one of the more prominent podcasts which focuses on digital media.

Alex Lindsay, the main face behind the podcast has very strong opinions on this topic and voiced his opinion that, in his opinion, there is no need for tapes.  Hard drives and/or multi-disk-fault tolerant systems are the way to go.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge Alex and his opinion. I largely do agree with what he has to say.  I simply do not think it is an acceptable solution of a large portion of those who need to archive content.

For what Alex needs to do, his solutions are highly suited.  However, one would agree, his production requirements are quite unique and do not mirror most of real world requirements.

I wanted to mention a few examples.

Firstly, let me go over a typical MOVIE production.

These days, if you can get it, you want at least 4:2:2 10bit 1920×1080 uncompressed recording system.  Say we obtain 14 terabits of footage on a largish film. If it has a lot of CG, this could blow out considerably.

These days I do suggest to these type of productions, to use HD storage.  Usually you can fit a day per Hard drive.   Plus get a backup.  So we have a 14 terabyte array, and 2x that for backup.  No problem.  Hard drives are cheap these days.  So are computers that can speak to them.  (Not like a $160,000 HD-CAM SR deck.)

Then, at the end of the production, and like most productions, a company was set up, and they are winding it up.  They want to archive the content at a set price with an open length of security of material.

Hard drives have no rating for siting on shelves for long periods of time.  If you want rated long term security with a one-off up front cost that you can then put in a box under your bed for the next 20 years….  Hard drives just do not cut it.  Long term online storage also, apart from being very expensive, requires effort and ongoing payment. (Remember the company is being wound up.)

Also remember, a lot of films are based on BANKS approving loans and insurance companies taking on risk of something going wrong.  There organisations require these RATINGS on processes involved.  For example, a reason tapeless was hard to get going in film making for quite some times is that tapeless did not have a reliability rating and was very hard if not uninsurable.

Film makers usually do not want have to think about all this.  They want to tie up the loose ends of a film and move onto bigger and better things. Looking after the online storage of a film for the next 50 years is not something they want to consider but do want to insure.

Now let’s imagine, if we just go with Hard drive.  Imagine all the footage they will simply be lost due to hard drives seising as the oil in them goes bad from not being used as they sit on the self.

Tape is the only current digital medium that has anywhere near a rated life span that would come close to putting in a box under your bed, pull it out 50 years later and expect it to work.  Film lovers love to promote this feature.

Let us move onto Blu-Ray.  Alex said it was far too expensive.  Today, yes, but in a few years it will be the same price as DVD, duel layered.  That is not shabby, and unlike a hard drive it does has rated archival qualities (Not that I have seen any yet for Blu-Ray, but I expect it to be reasonable)  Blu-Ray size and speed may not be that great, but for HDV and home movies, it not to bad.  Then again, this amount of data fits better with online storage solutions.

I personally would prefer, if I could, to be able to transfer any important content I own, onto a medium I can take with me.  Lock in a safe etc.  Online storage is great for many things, but not for all.