|
|
Posted by dvwool on 12/23/06 17:51
Thanks again for the replies.
DVD won't cut it for us... it needs to be accessible in a more
immediate manner and of better quality than MPEG-2. The content is
historic video footage that is important to our organization and that
will be used for many different purposes.
I've done those calculations myself and agree, it will take a long time
and cost a lot of money... one of the reasons for my initial post was
to try to find a company who would be interested in taking on the
project and could discuss specifics and ultimately cost. I need to
hear the real numbers so that we can determine how we want to proceed.
We may end up reducing the scope of the project to a subset of the
10,000 tapes.
Regarding storage... we have a partner who will be taking care of the
required capacity. They build high-end storage arrays and most
definitely won't be slapping together a box with mirrored drives. I'll
be sure to look under the hood though to make sure! ;-)
Sorry to be so secretive... I need to keep this project under wraps at
this point. I'll post back and let you know what we're doing once/if
we get started.
Thanks again!
Have a great holiday!
-Dave
nobody special wrote:
> You guys don't like MPEG2 (shrugs). There is "good" and there is "good
> enough". Heck, that's been microsoft's modus operandi for decades;-) My
> philosophy is you make a trade-off between quality and cost andm that
> mix is different for every person.
>
> Just a quick back of the napkin calculation, assuming 20-minute umatic
> cassette tape loads, you're looking at over 3,300 hours of material.
> Assuming a 40-hour workweek and not figuring in time to load, unload,
> rewind, clean heads, potty breaks, lunch, holidays, etc, I make it
> something over two years to get all this transferred by one person on a
> full-time basis. Of course, if you're in a hurry, you could hire more
> staff and gear working in parallel. Umatic decks and spares are
> getting harder to find. I am really curious as to what the program
> material is you're working to archive, and whether it's value justifies
> the expense of the transfer operation. 3,300 hours is a hell of a lot
> of hard drive storage any way you want to slice it, too. Lose one drive
> in an array that doesn't have redundancy, you've lost all the episodes
> on that drive. So what, you mirror the drives? To 6,600 hours of
> storage? What the heck are these programs? Maybe the first step is to
> cull what really needs and deserves to be archived from the rest?
> Interesting article in the latest WIRED magazine on how NASA lost the
> best live footage of Armstrong's moon landing, covers many of the same
> themes.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|