5 ms·

There are systems now to archive masses of data on film. Contrary to ordinary printed paper, film can easily last several decades and even centuries.

by wazoox 5y ago

AlotOfReading 5y ago
Paper can also easily last centuries. I have some century old paper in my house, just sitting on the bookshelf. There are archives with examples that are upwards of a thousand years old. If we include parchments, we have surviving documents predating the pyramids.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zozbot234 5y ago
I disagree, microfilms from only a few decades ago have degraded to the point of being near-illegible. Even low-quality paper has been far more reliable than that.
- mburee 5y ago
  On that note, "Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker
- wazoox 5y ago
  I'm talking about 35mm film infrequently accessed, not microfilm which is mostly degraded by repeated reading. Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last more than a few decades AFAIK. Color 35mm film is stable for at least 60 years in ordinary conditions and B&W film 100 years and more.
  - 8bitsrule 5y ago
    > Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last Many options there. I'm more concerned about printer-ink longevity. Tough to chase that down (recent tech). This page about preserving photos looks relevant; recommends coated halide or ink-jet for 100+ years) [https://www.shutterbug.com/content/how-long-will-your-digital-prints-lastbryou-may-be-surprised-page-2 https://www.shutterbug.com/content/how-long-will-your-digita...]. Paper's been around forever, so have long-lasting inks ... but printer-ink is too new. Typewriters have been around over a century ... haven't seen studies!
    - kragen 5y ago
      Laser printer toner is mostly pretty stable, stabler than paper. Most inkjet ink isn't.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    Polymers degrade all on their own without physical action. Microfiche or other photographic film is merely more dense and "pretty good" longevity. But the goal here is maximum robustness, including all aspects of the system or life cycle. Ubiquity, dependencies, acessibility, are important aspects, more important than information density. A film that lasts 200 years instead of thousands is not better. A film that requires a whole specialized infrastructure to produce the materials, is not better. A technology that requires a special media or special writer or special reader, is not better. Paper is both very long lasting, it's also easy to get, easy to print, and easy to read with only basic equipment and process requirements, and it only matters that the paper and ink are as durable as you want them to be. IE, you need paper, printer, camera, and computer, and if you also want longevity then you also need to select durable ink and paper, but it doesn't matter what kind exact kind of paper printer, camera or computer. If these were printed 40 years ago with dot matrix printers, it doesn't matter that in 200 years paper may not be made out of wood cellulose any more, or what kind of tech printers, cameras and computers are based on at that time. All that matters is that your choice of ink and paper aren't the obviously ephemeral types like thermal receipt printers or most inkjet. The 40 year old dot matrix version of this would just have lower data density than what a laser printer can attain, but it would be perfectly scannable today, and it wouldn't matter if today no one makes tractor feed paper any more, or that you're scanning it with a phone instead of some photodiode contraption. Aside from the simpleness of the paper & ink itself, the ubiquity is a huge functionality aspect. It's not better if it requires a photo lab to produce and a special viewer to read. A microfich viewer is not exactly high tech, but I don't have one, nor does my coffee shop nor any hotel or airport I've ever been in. But printers and cameras are everywhere, which means anyone can use them any where any time. And the critical point is it's not just todays printers and paper and inks that manufacturers just happen to be mass producing today. The image doesn't care what tech was used to print it, or scan it, it remains functional even when all the tech changes. The tech agnosticism and ubiquity/accessibility are the critically important features. They're not nice or optional, they're central, they're the explicit defined purposes and that outweigh all other considerations. There is no film anywhere that even comes close to doing as good a job as a printer and paper for the stated goals of this project.
    - 5y ago
traverseda 5y ago
Where? I can't find them.
- wazoox 5y ago
  There's this one https://digifilm-corp.com/home https://digifilm-corp.com/home And another one I can't find right now, it's a Norwegian company.
  - traverseda 5y ago
    Thanks! Google just could not find anything in this field for me.
kragen 5y ago
Paper normally lasts millennia if not burned or wet. Pulp paper is the exception, lasting only a century. Much film, by contrast, is only acetate, which suffers from a catastrophic autocatalytic degradation called "vinegar syndrome", similar to and synergistic with acid paper embrittlement but much, much worse. PET film (polyester) is stabler than any paper and immune to water, but most paper is much better than most film. Gelatin-printed film is also vulnerable to water.
- fmajid 5y ago
  And fungus will eat the gelatine base.

There are systems now to archive masses of data on film. Contrary to ordinary printed paper, film can easily last several decades and even centuries.

by wazoox 5y ago

There are systems now to archive masses of data on film. Contrary to ordinary printed paper, film can easily last several decades and even centuries.

AlotOfReading 5y ago

Paper can also easily last centuries. I have some century old paper in my house, just sitting on the bookshelf. There are archives with examples that are upwards of a thousand years old. If we include parchments, we have surviving documents predating the pyramids.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zozbot234 5y ago

I disagree, microfilms from only a few decades ago have degraded to the point of being near-illegible. Even low-quality paper has been far more reliable than that.

mburee 5y ago
On that note, "Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker
wazoox 5y ago
I'm talking about 35mm film infrequently accessed, not microfilm which is mostly degraded by repeated reading. Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last more than a few decades AFAIK. Color 35mm film is stable for at least 60 years in ordinary conditions and B&W film 100 years and more.
- 8bitsrule 5y ago
  > Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last Many options there. I'm more concerned about printer-ink longevity. Tough to chase that down (recent tech). This page about preserving photos looks relevant; recommends coated halide or ink-jet for 100+ years) [https://www.shutterbug.com/content/how-long-will-your-digital-prints-lastbryou-may-be-surprised-page-2 https://www.shutterbug.com/content/how-long-will-your-digita...]. Paper's been around forever, so have long-lasting inks ... but printer-ink is too new. Typewriters have been around over a century ... haven't seen studies!
  - kragen 5y ago
    Laser printer toner is mostly pretty stable, stabler than paper. Most inkjet ink isn't.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Polymers degrade all on their own without physical action. Microfiche or other photographic film is merely more dense and "pretty good" longevity. But the goal here is maximum robustness, including all aspects of the system or life cycle. Ubiquity, dependencies, acessibility, are important aspects, more important than information density. A film that lasts 200 years instead of thousands is not better. A film that requires a whole specialized infrastructure to produce the materials, is not better. A technology that requires a special media or special writer or special reader, is not better. Paper is both very long lasting, it's also easy to get, easy to print, and easy to read with only basic equipment and process requirements, and it only matters that the paper and ink are as durable as you want them to be. IE, you need paper, printer, camera, and computer, and if you also want longevity then you also need to select durable ink and paper, but it doesn't matter what kind exact kind of paper printer, camera or computer. If these were printed 40 years ago with dot matrix printers, it doesn't matter that in 200 years paper may not be made out of wood cellulose any more, or what kind of tech printers, cameras and computers are based on at that time. All that matters is that your choice of ink and paper aren't the obviously ephemeral types like thermal receipt printers or most inkjet. The 40 year old dot matrix version of this would just have lower data density than what a laser printer can attain, but it would be perfectly scannable today, and it wouldn't matter if today no one makes tractor feed paper any more, or that you're scanning it with a phone instead of some photodiode contraption. Aside from the simpleness of the paper & ink itself, the ubiquity is a huge functionality aspect. It's not better if it requires a photo lab to produce and a special viewer to read. A microfich viewer is not exactly high tech, but I don't have one, nor does my coffee shop nor any hotel or airport I've ever been in. But printers and cameras are everywhere, which means anyone can use them any where any time. And the critical point is it's not just todays printers and paper and inks that manufacturers just happen to be mass producing today. The image doesn't care what tech was used to print it, or scan it, it remains functional even when all the tech changes. The tech agnosticism and ubiquity/accessibility are the critically important features. They're not nice or optional, they're central, they're the explicit defined purposes and that outweigh all other considerations. There is no film anywhere that even comes close to doing as good a job as a printer and paper for the stated goals of this project.
  - 5y ago

traverseda 5y ago

Where? I can't find them.

wazoox 5y ago
There's this one https://digifilm-corp.com/home https://digifilm-corp.com/home And another one I can't find right now, it's a Norwegian company.
- traverseda 5y ago
  Thanks! Google just could not find anything in this field for me.

kragen 5y ago

Paper normally lasts millennia if not burned or wet. Pulp paper is the exception, lasting only a century. Much film, by contrast, is only acetate, which suffers from a catastrophic autocatalytic degradation called "vinegar syndrome", similar to and synergistic with acid paper embrittlement but much, much worse. PET film (polyester) is stabler than any paper and immune to water, but most paper is much better than most film. Gelatin-printed film is also vulnerable to water.

fmajid 5y ago
And fungus will eat the gelatine base.