|
|
Posted by PTravel on 10/25/17 11:45
"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1248pgsjsupa76a@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
> ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
> that is in you, with meekness and fear
> CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
> Founder and director
> http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
>
>>>
>> And what do you do whilest at Disneyland and you fill the hard drive up
>> the
>> first day????? Not everyone lugs a laptop around with them on vacation
>
> I agree. I think these HD camcorders will be bad and really only for
> certain peopel. As for me I prefer tapes. This is yet one reaosn, why I
> refuse to downgrade my nice Sony microcassette tape unit,to one of these
> digitals. With tape I can archive, with digital forget it. With tape the
> recorindings last, with digital they will not.
While I think tape is more robust for archiving than HDD, digital on tape is
more robust than analog on tape.
>
> I'll bet money that in 10 years I will still be able to play my tapes.
Maybe. I have an old Betamax machine sitting in my editing room. When that
goes, I will have no way of accessing the beta tapes that I have (some of
which go back to the early 80s, and are still as pristine as the day they
were recorded).
My digitized media, however, is easily converted as new standards evolve. I
have data that started its life on 5-1/4" floppies, was moved to 3-1/2"
floppies, then burned to CDs and finally to DVDs. The data remains
identical, without degradation of any kind, and readily accessible.
> I have audio tapes from 1987 that still play like a charm, and microtapes
> recorded in 1994 that also play like a charm. With digital everything is
> chaging so often.
But digital is easily converted without an loss of quality. If I didn't
have my Betamax, I would have had to dub the video over to VHS and, once
that started to become obsolete, dub it over again to a DVD recorder --
that's three analog steps, each one resulting in image degradation. By
digitizing it directly, I can burn it to DVD today, store the raw video on
miniDV, and re-digitize to HD-DVD or BlueRay when those come out without any
additional quality loss.
>
> For example the audio formats in 1987 are no longer supported on most
> computers. The standard audio format the Mac used from 1987-1994 is no
> longer supported under OSX, and in order for me to play all my old
> recordings I have to use a old classic app, which is not supported on the
> new Intel macs.
I will not get into the Mac vs. PC debate, except to say that there is
nothing that I created in 1987, including audio data, that I cannot access
on my PC today.
>
> No thank you, I think I'll stick with tape. Law enforcement and many
> others agree, its the best way.
>
> DVD will be dead in 10 years, and it will be hard to find players to read
> the discs.
So what? DVD is a delivery vehicle, not a recording vehicle. MiniDV may be
dead in 10 years, but long before it dies, the digital data that it stores
can be transferred to whatever is the latest and greatest medium of the
moment.
>The audio formats of today will probably have a hard tiem playing on the
>computers of 10 years.
I doubt that. Data is data. It's very easy to write software that handles
varied digital formats -- it's far harder to build hardware that will read
an obsolete analog format. If you think not, try finding a way to view 1"
helical scan video tapes.
>
>
> No thanks I'll stick with my tapes!
>
>
> John
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|