Re: CD-R - Not so useful for archiving photos?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Dykes, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. Al Dykes

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <bj28v0$6um$>,
    Matt Arnold <> wrote:
    >Hi,
    >
    >I've just read this on The Register:
    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html
    >
    >As I'm just starting to archive my photos after a couple of HDD failures
    >(yep, lost all my pics as the HDD was completely devoid of all power), I'm
    >wondering if even archiving onto CD-Rs is not the way to go any more.
    >
    >Question to those who use CD-Rs for archival purposes: What brand do you use
    >and how long have they retained intact data for?
    >


    Brand doesn't matter. You have to set up your CD filing system
    so that, for instance, every month you copy every CD you
    burned 24 months ago. Then send the 2-year-old disk to offsite
    storage (if you don't already make offsite duplicates)

    This can factor in new technology. When DVDR is proven and
    you buy a DVDR kit you can copy several months of CDs to each
    disk. This way you will parallel for a couple of years,
    until we think we can trust DVDR.

    My $0.02





    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
     
    Al Dykes, Sep 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Dykes

    Brad Guest

    In article <bj2cd3$d3e$>, said...
    > In article <bj28v0$6um$>,
    > Matt Arnold <> wrote:
    > >
    > >I've just read this on The Register:
    > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html
    > >
    > >As I'm just starting to archive my photos after a couple of HDD failures
    > >(yep, lost all my pics as the HDD was completely devoid of all power), I'm
    > >wondering if even archiving onto CD-Rs is not the way to go any more.
    > >
    > >Question to those who use CD-Rs for archival purposes: What brand do you use
    > >and how long have they retained intact data for?

    >
    > Brand doesn't matter. You have to set up your CD filing system
    > so that, for instance, every month you copy every CD you
    > burned 24 months ago. Then send the 2-year-old disk to offsite
    > storage (if you don't already make offsite duplicates)
    >
    > This can factor in new technology. When DVDR is proven and
    > you buy a DVDR kit you can copy several months of CDs to each
    > disk. This way you will parallel for a couple of years,
    > until we think we can trust DVDR.


    If you're talking about re-copying everthing every 2 years anyway I think
    DVDR is ready for that now. Besides, the per GB cost is much cheaper
    especially when you consider disc swapping to do larger dumps.
     
    Brad, Sep 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Dykes

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Al Dykes wrote:

    > In article <bj28v0$6um$>,
    > Matt Arnold <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>I've just read this on The Register:
    >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html
    >>
    >>As I'm just starting to archive my photos after a couple of HDD failures
    >>(yep, lost all my pics as the HDD was completely devoid of all power), I'm
    >>wondering if even archiving onto CD-Rs is not the way to go any more.
    >>
    >>Question to those who use CD-Rs for archival purposes: What brand do you use
    >>and how long have they retained intact data for?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Brand doesn't matter. You have to set up your CD filing system
    > so that, for instance, every month you copy every CD you
    > burned 24 months ago. Then send the 2-year-old disk to offsite
    > storage (if you don't already make offsite duplicates)
    >
    > This can factor in new technology. When DVDR is proven and
    > you buy a DVDR kit you can copy several months of CDs to each
    > disk. This way you will parallel for a couple of years,
    > until we think we can trust DVDR.
    >
    > My $0.02
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    And when do you find time to read newsgroups???? Grin.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 2, 2003
    #3
  4. Al Dykes

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Brad wrote:

    > In article <bj2cd3$d3e$>, said...
    >
    >>In article <bj28v0$6um$>,
    >>Matt Arnold <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I've just read this on The Register:
    >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32593.html
    >>>
    >>>As I'm just starting to archive my photos after a couple of HDD failures
    >>>(yep, lost all my pics as the HDD was completely devoid of all power), I'm
    >>>wondering if even archiving onto CD-Rs is not the way to go any more.
    >>>
    >>>Question to those who use CD-Rs for archival purposes: What brand do you use
    >>>and how long have they retained intact data for?

    >>
    >>Brand doesn't matter. You have to set up your CD filing system
    >>so that, for instance, every month you copy every CD you
    >>burned 24 months ago. Then send the 2-year-old disk to offsite
    >>storage (if you don't already make offsite duplicates)
    >>
    >>This can factor in new technology. When DVDR is proven and
    >>you buy a DVDR kit you can copy several months of CDs to each
    >>disk. This way you will parallel for a couple of years,
    >>until we think we can trust DVDR.

    >
    >
    > If you're talking about re-copying everthing every 2 years anyway I think
    > DVDR is ready for that now. Besides, the per GB cost is much cheaper
    > especially when you consider disc swapping to do larger dumps.


    Since HD storage is down around $0.50 a gigabyte, just buying another HD
    might be cheaper soon. MUCH faster than DVD.
     
    Ron Hunter, Sep 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Al Dykes

    Brad Guest

    In article <>,
    said...
    > Brad wrote:
    >
    > > If you're talking about re-copying everthing every 2 years anyway I think
    > > DVDR is ready for that now. Besides, the per GB cost is much cheaper
    > > especially when you consider disc swapping to do larger dumps.

    >
    > Since HD storage is down around $0.50 a gigabyte, just buying another HD
    > might be cheaper soon. MUCH faster than DVD.


    But not as portable. If you want a small portion of that kind of
    portability you need to put it in a firewire/USB2 enclosure, but that will
    put your price up higher. Besides, .50/GB is not any kind of standard now
    unless you count these rebate deals which often dubious.
     
    Brad, Sep 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> This can factor in new technology. When DVDR is proven and
    >> you buy a DVDR kit you can copy several months of CDs to each
    >> disk. This way you will parallel for a couple of years,
    >> until we think we can trust DVDR.
    >>

    >And when do you find time to read newsgroups???? Grin.


    During the whopping 20 minutes it takes to burn 4gigs, he can sit
    and read the newsgroups.


    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Sep 2, 2003
    #6
  7. Al Dykes

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Since HD storage is down around $0.50 a gigabyte, just buying another HD
    >> might be cheaper soon.


    >From: Brad
    >
    >But not as portable. If you want a small portion of that kind of
    >portability you need to put it in a firewire/USB2 enclosure, but that will
    >put your price up higher.


    Local Frys had a special on Maxtor 120 GB external USB 2.0 hard drives last
    week, $130 after rebate or a bit over $1 per Gb. Prices on this type of drive
    seem to be dropping rapidly the last 6 months.

    Dunno how long these drives last but they are very fast and portable, and I've
    started using them for short term storage. I can only get one 16 bit mode 6x7
    cm scan on a CD-R so CD-R's are not a solution for me.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
    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. Bill Hilton

    Re: CD-R - Not so useful for archiving photos?

    Bill Hilton, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
    Bill Hilton
    Sep 2, 2003
  2. Andrew McDonald

    Re: CD-R - Not so useful for archiving photos?

    Andrew McDonald, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    635
    Barry Smith
    Oct 2, 2003
  3. Eigenvector

    Re: CD-R - Not so useful for archiving photos?

    Eigenvector, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    394
    Eigenvector
    Sep 6, 2003
  4. WMAS 1960

    Re: CD-R - Not so useful for archiving photos?

    WMAS 1960, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
    WMAS 1960
    Sep 3, 2003
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    972
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page