Good news for high volume data backup

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html

    Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).

    This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).

    Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    Gigabytes of images :)
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon

    gpaleo Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote
    news:...
    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site





    Gave up on optical media when 500GB hard disks dropped to 100EURO or less.
    Now I back up nearly instantly to removable drives.
    If you install a RAID array, it's even simpler.
    gpaleo, Jan 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon wrote:
    []
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)


    I'm considering whether I really want wallets and wallets of DVDs for
    backup - DVDs which may not be readable in a few years time. Instead, I'm
    thinking of a couple of portable 250GB 2.5-inch HDs......

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <mRJfj.72807$>, david-
    -this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...

    > I'm considering whether I really want wallets and wallets of DVDs for
    > backup - DVDs which may not be readable in a few years time. Instead, I'm
    > thinking of a couple of portable 250GB 2.5-inch HDs......


    A highly risky approach. One head crash and you lose everything.

    Besides it's sufficient if DVDs last until the next generation of media
    becomes available. You then just need to copy all your disks to the next
    media generation.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <1199532306.114264@athprx04>, says...

    > Gave up on optical media when 500GB hard disks dropped to 100EURO or less.
    > Now I back up nearly instantly to removable drives.
    > If you install a RAID array, it's even simpler.


    But they are by far not as safe as DVD-Rs. I use a RAID array and in
    addition keep backup copies on DVDs.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Alfred Molon

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)


    Hmm. You might be right, but considering that HD DVD has some powerful
    supporters, don't knock it out yet. I also am not sure optical disks
    would make good backup media only because writing to them would be a
    heck of a lot slower than mechanical disk drives or solid state devices.
    Shawn Hirn, Jan 5, 2008
    #6
  7. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <mRJfj.72807$>, david-
    > -this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...
    >
    >> I'm considering whether I really want wallets and wallets of DVDs for
    >> backup - DVDs which may not be readable in a few years time.
    >> Instead, I'm thinking of a couple of portable 250GB 2.5-inch
    >> HDs......

    >
    > A highly risky approach. One head crash and you lose everything.


    Er, no. (a) it's a backup and the originals may still be available (I
    tend to keep all my processed stuff on disk, but not the unprocessed
    "master"), and (b) the whole point of the two HDs is in case one fails
    (portable to that one can be kept off-site).

    > Besides it's sufficient if DVDs last until the next generation of
    > media becomes available. You then just need to copy all your disks to
    > the next media generation.


    ... and I think I would prefer to copy one 250GB disk to the next 2TB (or
    whatever) rather than have to copy 60 DVDs.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon

    PossumTrot Guest

    "Shawn Hirn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Hmm. You might be right, but considering that HD DVD has some powerful
    > supporters, don't knock it out yet. I also am not sure optical disks
    > would make good backup media only because writing to them would be a
    > heck of a lot slower than mechanical disk drives or solid state devices.


    I too assumed that the recent announcement that Warner had chosen BluRay
    might mean the end of HD-DVD, but an article today says that consumers have
    bought about 60% more HD-DVD machines than BluRay (something like 500,000+
    to 300,000+). One of the reasons for those numbers may be that WalMart
    sells HD-DVD machines exclusively.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    PossumTrot, Jan 5, 2008
    #8
  9. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Alfred Molon
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)


    In fact, this MIGHT be a very bad news to (smarter? ;-) consumers.

    I happened to investigate the difference between two formats last
    week; ignoring the size difference (which may come and go due to
    possibility of multi-layer variants), the MAJOR difference between the
    formats is the encryption.

    Apparently, Blu-ray MANDATES the AACS encryption. To add AACS, you
    need to set up an account with AACS (about $3K - $10K, depending on
    nobody knows what), and, after this, pay AACS about $1500 for each
    master disk. Currently, the state of debugging is that you need about
    3 "try" masters before you get a satisfactory result. This gives the
    minimum overhead price of AACS of $9K or more.

    This is nothing for major releases; thus people who see HD contents
    only via major movies, this overhead does not matter at all. But for
    "independent" video producers, this makes releasing Blu-ray
    prohibitive. Thus, a Blu-ray-only world would be skewed much more to
    the side of big corporations.

    [Today, to release a few thousand run costs about $3.5 per HD disk,
    and $7 per disk on Blu-ray; AFAIK, this difference is due NOT to the
    technical matters, but entirely to AACS fees (it is with a producer
    who takes video content, and returns already printed stuff). It
    won't go down due to volume economy. The printing price is
    practically the same - both per layer, or per gigabyte...]

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya

    P.S. I could not find out on which step the AACS-requirement is
    enforced. Is it the player, the Sony printing facilities, or
    ALL printint facilities? If somebody knows, please answer...

    Thanks...
    Ilya Zakharevich, Jan 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Jan 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Alfred Molon

    Guest

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:55:33 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <ThOfj.72964$>, david-
    >-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...
    >
    >> .. and I think I would prefer to copy one 250GB disk to the next 2TB (or
    >> whatever) rather than have to copy 60 DVDs.

    >
    >You can still do that. But you should keep backups on DVD just in case.


    I gave up on that a while ago. I prefer to use two usb drives which I
    rotate, keeping one in my desk at work. Prior to this I kept DVDs at work.
    But given how inexpensive these disks are these days and how much quicker
    they are than burning DVDs, it's not a hard choice to make.
    , Jan 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, <>
    wrote:

    > I gave up on that a while ago. I prefer to use two usb drives which I
    > rotate, keeping one in my desk at work. Prior to this I kept DVDs at work.
    > But given how inexpensive these disks are these days and how much quicker
    > they are than burning DVDs, it's not a hard choice to make.


    i used to do the cd/dvd route too. what a royal pain in the butt that
    was.

    now, i have all my images on a single drive (backed up of course) and
    any image is easily accessible at any time, even when i travel. that
    would be impossible with dvds.
    nospam, Jan 6, 2008
    #12
  13. Alfred Molon

    george Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >


    Of course on the downside for Blue Ray is that Sony is on their side. How
    can one argue with a company whose line of "successes" include:
    1) Betamax
    2) MD
    3) 8mm video
    4) Hi-8 video
    5) Digital-8 video
    6) Memory Stick and Memory Stick Pro
    7) SACD
    8) Li-Ion batteries used in Dell and other PCs (you remember, that enormous
    recall...)
    I've probably even missed some!

    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    george, Jan 6, 2008
    #13
  14. Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <ThOfj.72964$>, david-
    > -this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...
    >
    >> .. and I think I would prefer to copy one 250GB disk to the next 2TB
    >> (or whatever) rather than have to copy 60 DVDs.

    >
    > You can still do that. But you should keep backups on DVD just in
    > case.


    I do agree with you, but then I ask, why? What is to say that a
    cheap-and-nasty DVD-R (the sort you can buy in the local shops) written on
    the cheapest DVD writer (the sort fitted to most PCs), is going to be more
    reliable?

    I'm proposing that my processed photos will be on 4 HDs, two 3.5-inch
    "live" disks, and two 2.5-inch portable backup HDs, one kept off-site.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <wi%fj.73232$>, david-
    -this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...

    > I do agree with you, but then I ask, why? What is to say that a
    > cheap-and-nasty DVD-R (the sort you can buy in the local shops) written on
    > the cheapest DVD writer (the sort fitted to most PCs), is going to be more
    > reliable?


    Obviously you would use quality DVDs, wouldn't you? As for the writers
    they seem to cost all the same. In any case, so far I have experienced
    perhaps 1-2% bad DVDs which could not be read anymore and to be on the
    safe side I burn two copies of each DVD (and I also have a HD backup,
    see below).

    > I'm proposing that my processed photos will be on 4 HDs, two 3.5-inch
    > "live" disks, and two 2.5-inch portable backup HDs, one kept off-site.


    I burn each file on two DVDs and keep a copy on a RAID array. I also
    keep an additional copy on an external hard disk. I use the DVDs in case
    something is wrong with the hard disks. In any case, at the moment I
    have a huge and growing stack of DVDs, which is why a disk which has the
    capacity of 11 DVDs sounds so appealing. Would reduce my DVD stack size
    by a factor 11.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
    Alfred Molon, Jan 6, 2008
    #15
  16. Alfred Molon

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >In article <mRJfj.72807$>, david-
    >-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk says...
    >
    >> I'm considering whether I really want wallets and wallets of DVDs for
    >> backup - DVDs which may not be readable in a few years time. Instead, I'm
    >> thinking of a couple of portable 250GB 2.5-inch HDs......

    >
    >A highly risky approach. One head crash and you lose everything.



    You need multiple backup copies no matter what the backup media is.
    Al Dykes, Jan 6, 2008
    #16
  17. Alfred Molon

    Bolshoi Guest

    On 5 Jan, 11:35, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site


    did you ever consider compressing the files first ??
    Bolshoi, Jan 6, 2008
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >
    > Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format (50GB
    > per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >
    > This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and lower
    > costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >
    > Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    > Gigabytes of images :)


    Well, it will sell more players...
    I am still not convinced that optical media is reliable enough for my
    backups.
    I have rented entirely too many unplayable DVDs.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 6, 2008
    #18
  19. Bolshoi wrote:
    > On 5 Jan, 11:35, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html
    >>
    >> Warner chose to support only the higher capacity Blue Ray format
    >> (50GB
    >> per disk for Blue Ray vs. 30GB per disk for HD DVD).
    >>
    >> This could mean the death of the lower capacity HD DVD format and
    >> lower
    >> costs for Blue Ray disks due to their mass use (economies of scale).
    >>
    >> Good news for all photographers who have to backup Gigabytes and
    >> Gigabytes of images :)
    >> --
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon
    >> ------------------------------
    >> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum
    >> athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo
    >> sharing site

    >
    > did you ever consider compressing the files first ??


    Did you every try compressing JPEGs?
    David J Taylor, Jan 6, 2008
    #19
  20. Bolshoi <> wrote:
    >did you ever consider compressing the files first ??


    JPEG is already a compressed format. Even much more elaborate (read: much
    more expensive) compression algorithms won't be able to squeeze them more
    than a very few percentage points tighter.

    If you are talking about RAW then that's a different animal, of course.

    jue
    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
    Jürgen Exner, Jan 6, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    777
    DVD Verdict
    May 26, 2005
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    932
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 13, 2006
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    858
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 20, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    666
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Donchano
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,416
    Donchano
    Feb 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page