Imacon scans - file format question

[cm1]

After two years with an Imacon 646 I find that my large hard disks are full once

again, and I need to upgrade my PC once again. This time I will have to go for

about 2 Terabyte disk space (SATA II plus a costly eSATA backup) ... maybe it's

time to talk about file formats.

 

First of all, I scan images that are printed very large, 16x20" often enough, in

exhibition quality. So, I scan in full resolution. In order to get the most out

of my b/w negatives I have two choices:

 

1. the proprietary Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight "3F" file format

2. 16-bit TIFF

 

Each scan in full resolution has between 80 and 200 Megabytes. Saving as a

compressed TIFF does not save much space.

 

Unforunately, JPEG is absolutely no choice because JPEG is limited to 8 bit and

therefore not so nice, at least not for b/w images where I love the

uncompressed, unlimited tones of an analog image that does not reduce reality to

256 tones. Playing with contrasts, dodging and burning a lot in the images and

other Photoshop tricks are extremely limited in a b/w image with 8 bit. Yes, I

tried it.

 

Are there other file formats that allow 16 bit and create smaller files? I found

nothing about it.

 

If I find a solution for this I might invest into hard disks later and buy them

when they are even cheaper... and then my next question will be, how can I speed

up an Imacon 646 without selling it on eBay and buying a new Hasselblad X2? :-)

[mendel_leisk]

Stick with current file format and start burning DVD?

[cm1]

Mendel,

 

in fact, I have an extra backup HD and burn on DVD also. What's better than one backup is two backups on very different media :-)

[johncrosley]

<p>Clemens,<br>

I'm reviewing older questions and responses.<br>

At this date, Feb. 2010, a 1.5 terabyte external hard drive can be purchased in the US at a large electronic store on special sales often for $100 or less and almost always for $120 or less.<br>

Every weekend in the Los Angeles and other West Coast cities and certain other cities scattered from the Midwest through Texas, I find advertisements for 2 terabyte drives under the same terms as above for $159.99 on special sale and $179.99 on 'advertised specials' with the variable being that any one hard drive purchased likely will go up in price after an advertised 'special' and another brand later will go on sale, making accumulating several of the same brand more expensive if one does not accumulate them all at once on the absolute best 'specials' (which often limit purchases to 'one per customer' which usually is 'waived' by stores on request.<br>

DVDs now are being touted as a less reliable way to archive images than keeping a second hard drive. <br>

Best tech advice now is to keep that second hard drive (or third and fourth) not only physically separated from the main (original) drive, but also not only 'off site' but preferably in a separate geographic area, to avoid regional catastrophes such as flood, major wildfires (ref. Los Angeles area), earthquakes (where major damage can occur over an area of over 100 miles e.g., the 'San Francisco' quake of '89 had its epicenter more than 50 miles away just north of Watsonville, in the Coastal Mountains of the Pacific, about two hours' drive from San Francisco).<br>

DVDs have been found to 'drop images' after some period, but that 'finite period' is unknowable and unknown in advance, so one takes one's chances -- and any one vendor may draw from a variety of manufacturers, and each may have experienced quality control problems at any stage that affect file longevity (which cannot be known when DVD writing or your original quality inspection is made as you write). <br>

DVDs are optical and subject to deterioration depending on storage conditions. (same with hard drives, of course . . . . but hard drives seem to be getting better as time passes, but only after they have been 'burned in' for a period of up to a month of six months, at which point they become relatively reliable, especially if used infrequently but regularly and stored under ideal conditions.<br>

Keeping a second or third/fourth, etc. hard drive allows one to review one's files routinely, and if any one drive shows signs of dropping a file or any part, it will be known immediately.<br>

(Just select the first and last file, and all in between in Windows, and hit properties, then compare the exact number of bytes that is shown with the original amount and if there is ANY VARIANCE, there has been data loss (and some file will not open in all likelihood (that data may possibly be recovered by data recovery software -- probably not possible with a DVD).<br>

It takes an enormous amount of time to burn DVDs and especially if one makes backups. The cost in DVD blanks can mount and for better brands not bought on sale, it can challenge the price of a good hard drive.<br>

A hard drive of one to two terabytes can be transferred byte for byte just by one copy move (provided file length is not too long). The maneuver can be initiated with two hard drives (even two externals) and you can just walk away. The transfer can take one to two days (or more) depending on transfer method and computer speed.<br>

You can measure accuracy of the transfer in windows by going to 'properties' by selecting 'all files' then viewing the number of 'bytes' for each and they should be an exact match, one drive to the next) with NO VARIANCE at all. If there is variance, the transfer has an error, which one can track down rather easily by doing the same 'properties' check in file batches (which is a good reason for keeping files in designated batch 'folders' preferably with serial numbering or other serial identifiers, for ease of location on disk).<br>

At this date, per Leo LaPorte, (The Tech Guy), and others, DVD archiving probably is technically obsolete. <br>

An archived hard drive must be tested periodically -- every month or every few months or any time a file disappears or is 'erased accidentally' on a main drive and must be replaced.<br>

(backups of backups are highly recommended if you believe your digital or digitized photos have high value).<br>

I recently traveled about 7,000 miles, with my entire photo backup collection in my camera/lens bag and my laptop bag. <br>

It consisted of two, two terabyte hard drives, which contained the larger part of my photos, stuck in my camera bag and hand carried, then my laptop bag held another four hard drives tucked around my computer (they were a mix of 1.5 and 2.0 terabyte drives). Incidentally, all of these drives could be driven by one single electrical adapter from one of the manufacturers, which could handle US voltage (110~120 V 60 Hz,) to the current of the country where I traveled (220~240 volt 50 Hz) and equally could handle 60 Hz as well at any voltage. <br>

The amperage requirements and polarity of all drives (from three manufacturers) were within limits for safe use on the chosen adapter from just one manufacturer, though I had more than one adapter in my main luggage, just for safety's sake.<br>

In total, I believe my carry-on bags had a capacity of 11 terabytes no real risk of damage attendant to 'checked baggage'. All in an Overhead Bin' and guarded closely by me.<br>

In addition to a laptop, I also carried three cameras around my neck (with lenses) and a full load of lenses inside my camera bag (I like my carrier very much!). This gives an idea of the relative 'volume' used by the hard drives.<br>

In the past I also have carried two hard drives in zippered ski parka pockets as well -- the 3.5 inch 'form factor' hard drives are getting smaller and smaller every day . . . and within two years this post will be very out of date, I think.<br>

In previous years, I had to fight just to get one (sometimes two) huge one terabyte Maxtor (Seagate built) hard drives onto a plane's cabin and then struggled with the huge weight and mass. (they're still working away . . . despite the travel, and same with my Buffalo drives . . .Samsung). Also airport security then gave me the 'evil eye' because those huge, older one terabyte (and one-and one-half terabyte) hard drives looked just like auto batteries, if not inspected too closely, and auto batteries are filled with acid and thus considered highly hazardous.<br>

For the record.<br>

John (Crosley)<br>

 

<p> </p>

<br>

© 2010, John Crosley, all rights reserved</p>