|
|
Posted by Charles Tomaras on 10/05/35 11:45
"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UCv1g.7115$_w6.2638@trndny09...
>
> "TheFug." <nospam@plea.se> wrote in message
> news:khqc429f6290iv7329jstmj791gjb6rjmg@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:39:02 GMT, szekeres@pitt.edu (GregS) wrote:
>>
>> You also have to decode digital formats.... when the're out of
>> fashion, you can't decode...
>> -- The Fug
>>
> Good point. I thought about that right after made the post.
> The 1s and 0s may be fine, but if you don't have the right
> codec, then you would be screwed. An example of that is
> the proprietary MJPEG files that my Matrox Digisuite creates.
> If you try to open them on a computer that doesn't have
> their codec, they are not readable.
>
> Analog, on the other hand, only represents a varying voltage
> run it at the right speed and your audio or video should work.
> It might look or sound like shit, but you should be able to
> extract some of the information.
>
> David
Still think it will be much easier to resurrect a codec in the future than
to reglue oxide to it's base. With all of the virtualization capabilities
that are upon us it shouldn't be too difficult to be able to run any OS or
software in the future on any existing platform. It's much more difficult to
play a wire recording on a 1/4 tape deck. Maybe one should choose a codec
for archival purposes that is a little more mainstream than something from
Matrox. While many might disagree with me, I've ripped all of my 1000+ CD's
to WMA Lossless and feel pretty assured that if any codec is to be around in
15 or 20 years it will be the one that had an encoder and player on millions
of PC's.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|