Blu-Ray disc use receding faster than expected

[Andrew Smith]

Thar be the truth. That's really good solid thinking there. I wonder if it is even in the mindset of the client that their video guy would still have a copy of their wedding etc from years ago.

Andrew

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value. Whether optical storage outlasts solid state, is to my mind purely of limited technical interest.

But surely for wedding videos, then it's exactly for it's personal historical value in years to come that many people decide to have one made in the first place, isn't it? Something to show the children and grandchildren and something to look back on - and maybe an only record of relatives who may no longer be around.

If you're happy to deliver such on solid state, I assume you do make it clear to your clients that without active archiving, what you are giving them is unlikely to last a decade - even assuming availability of hardware and software? Make it clear that the files need to be copied before too many years have passed - or face losing them?

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I have archive copies of weddings going back to 1983, on Betamax, VHS, Umatic and DVD. That totals well over 2000 weddings and I have only once been asked if I could supply a copy after more than a few months. That was for a seven year old wedding, where the couple had the original stolen.

That's not the point. Previous clients may have lost your details, moved away, or not considered any possibility that a replacement may be available, so never even bothered to ask. For video with future value, it's the copy supplied to the client that needs to be as future proof as realistically and viably possible, if you are acting in their best interests. And currently (and assuming no active archive policy) that has to be a DVD for SD, BluRay for HD. The discs will last longer than the data on solid state, and surely the blank media is cheaper anyway?

Nothing can be guaranteed 100% future-proof indefinitely - even tablets of stone - but that's no excuse for not doing the best possible at the time.

And the more wedding videos get a reputation for not lasting, the stronger will be the argument for couples just spending that budget on a set of high quality stills. (I recently came across my parents wedding photos at the back of a cupboard - and that was from 1948.)

[Denis Danatzko]

I think David makes some good points, particularly in light of the ease and interest in developing family histories and researching family ancestry. The 'net has made that SO much easier. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if wedding videographers found at least some business if they would only advertise the fact that they had old footage available. Even in the case of divorce or step-families, there may be "children" or siblings who might find it worthwhile to have footage from earlier years. If nothing else, it might provide some work (and income) in the slow months.

As for myself, I primarily do equestrian competitions, not weddings. For those, I provide a "normal" and an "enlarged" view of each clip (scaled-up by 40-50%) at both normal speed and slo-mo. Each of those becomes a chapter on a DVD. (While I don't really like down-rezing from HD to SD for DVD,no one has asked for BD yet). While I'm considering distribution on USB Flash drive, I don't know of a way to "chapterize" footage on them. (Remember, these are horse people; they spend their day riding, or in the barn, or traveling to/from shows...not in front of a computer, so I want it to be real easy for them to see their footage).

Bottom line for me is that I'll continue to use DVD (and/or BD when it's asked for), and make flash drives available for those who want them. While DVDs take more work due to menu creation, printing, and packaging, I'm hoping discs don't disappear too soon.

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value.

I agree. My use case is specifically historical family archive footage. In essence, someone's great great grandparent telling the story of his/her life. So, mainly of use for family archivists/historians.

[Vaughan Wood]

"While I'm considering distribution on USB Flash drive, I don't know of a way to "chapterize" footage on them" by Denis Danatzko

Hi Denis.

There is a company that makes a CD menu program that also works on USB sticks.

You would have to have your chapter points as separate movies, but they will all play straight through from the 1st one if required. The program is basic but good, and has a trial.

(Don't know how to put the link in) here goes!


Read more about SamLogic USB Menu Creator

USB Menu Creator - Creates an AutoRun Menu Interface for a USB Flash Drive / USB stick

[David Moody]

My experience with Bluray is that they are far more durable than DVD when it comes to kids and the inevitable scratches

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Vaughan Wood

There is a company that makes a CD menu program that also works on USB sticks.

You would have to have your chapter points as separate movies, but they will all play straight through from the 1st one if required. The program is basic but good, and has a trial.

Yes, and it may be sensible in some cases, but the disadvantage over DVD and BluRay is that it's far more proprietary, less of a general standard. With a DVD or BluRay, you know exactly where you are, exactly what's needed for guaranteed playback.

If you must deliver something with menus, chapters etc on solid state, then what's wrong with making an .iso file that corresponds to a DVD or Blu-Ray? Hence is compatible with programmes like WinDVD, VLC etc for direct computer use - or can be simply and directly burnt to a disc if you want a "real" DVD or Blu-Ray?

But I still don't really see the point. For such usage, a solid state USB drive is dearer than a blank Blu-Ray disc, and is likely to be inferior in archive terms. So why not just burn the disc and hand that over?

[Roger Gunkel]

David, I think you are missing my point here. I do agree that dvd/bluray is better than solid state for archiving, and I keep a copy of every wedding I deliver on the same format that they request it on. That is almost exclusively dvd and I can always copy it if required in the future.

What I don't agree with is the need to archive raw footage for future re-editing, which is what a number of members seem concerned about. It is also not up to the videographer to archive the client's finished work for years in my opinion, rather that the client should protect their own valuable family history for future generations. There is absolutely no reason why a client couldn't get their wedding footage copied to a future format as their existing one becomes obsolete. It is not our responsibility to future proof it for them, indeed they can bring it back to me in a few years time if they wish for transfer, just as I used to do with old VHS tapes and cine film.

If producers are concerned about archiving footage, perhaps they should consider charging clients a yearly rate for storing their footage on a contractual basis, rather than filling up archiving tapes, discs, hard drives or whatever at great cost to the producer. I am happy to film and edit a client's family history, but I'm certainly not bothered if they lose it through lack of care, obsolescence, or because they aren't prepared to pay for the luxury of archiving. My experience is that they will never want a re-edit and if you keep an original copy, that is all you will need if it worries you.

I will be moving home soon and weddings or commercial work that I have kept copies of for more than 10 years, will be destroyed and taken to the tip. The extra space will come in useful :-)

As a final thought, when I buy a new car, the supplier will not give me another copy of it if I don't look after it, have it serviced properly or it becomes obsolete. If it is properly looked after it will last for years, but it is up to me to cover the cost of that and I really don't see much difference with a video product that I supply.

Roger

[Mark Donnell]

In my opinion, Blu-Ray never was a good option, never caught on with the public, and is indeed dying at a rapid rate. I have offered free HD videos of important family events on Blu-Ray to friends and others, and rarely does anybody want one. Blu-Ray is further limited by bit-rate restrictions, and although it may be the best "commercial" quality out there right now, most people are happy with up-scaled DVDs. For those who are videophiles, Blu-ray isn't good enough. Also, in 4-5 years it is likely that 4K TVs will be as common as HD sets now, and most content will be available in 4K. I understand that there is an effort to put 4K on a Blu-ray disc, but streaming and USB stick delivery will likely be the delivery methods of choice by then. Blu-Ray is headed for the archives, to join its old frenemy HD-DVD.

[Dave Blackhurst]

And that may well hit the proverbial nail on the head - the BR vs. HD-DVD mess probably soured many consumers that might have been convinced by a single format, properly promoted and reasonably priced (it took WAY too long for BR players/drives/burners to bust the $100 mark!!). ONLY NOW is BR getting more promotion, and it's probably too little too late. A case of winning the battle only to lose the war!

With 4K already screaming around the corner, there will need to be a suitable physical storage media, for those who don't trust "virtual" streaming/storage, or who want something tangible they can hold. ALL that is really needed is something physical, and a menu system for convenient playback, that can interface to whatever display is handy. Perhaps a rather large plastic disk is not the "best" option at this stage of the digital "game"? Leaving the question if "if not that, then WHAT?"

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

What I don't agree with is the need to archive raw footage for future re-editing, which is what a number of members seem concerned about.

It depends on the work, but in the main I fully agree, and think that in the case of this thread, it's the finished version - not rushes - that is being thought about?

It is also not up to the videographer to archive the client's finished work for years in my opinion, rather that the client should protect their own valuable family history for future generations.

And I agree, and I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. I did after all say near the beginning "For video with future value, it's the copy supplied to the client that needs to be as future proof as realistically and viably possible, if you are acting in their best interests."

When referring to the lack of previous clients approaching you for copies, I got the impression you were implying it meant a lack of interest in general as the years go by about such as wedding videos - I meant to give reasons why there could be another explanation.

There is absolutely no reason why a client couldn't get their wedding footage copied to a future format as their existing one becomes obsolete. It is not our responsibility to future proof it for them, indeed they can bring it back to me in a few years time if they wish for transfer, just as I used to do with old VHS tapes and cine film.

One problem is that some producers cite copyright and insist that only they have the right to make additional copies, and may even have used copy prevention systems in the past. I'm aware of one instance in particular where the only copy a client had was on VHS, they had not been able to get in touch with the original firm who made the video, weren't able to make their own copy (due to Macrovision), and commercial copying services refused to deal with it because of the copyright issue.

Personally, I think that when it's a one-one contract - such as a wedding video - copyright should be bought out by the client. Have a business model where the profit is primarily in the one-off fee - not on a per copy basis. When it's an event (with multiple copies sold to multiple parties) it's obviously a different scenario.

Secondly, you're assuming that their existing copy is not just becoming obsolete, but is able to be played and copied at all given the appropriate hardware. With common tape based formats, that's generally been true in the past, as long as it's been stored in reasonable conditions. With optical disc formats it may also be true - but go to material on solid state or hard drives stored for a while and they may be in for a nasty surprise. Hard drives don't like to be left unused for long at all, (they may refuse to spin) and effects like quantum tunnelling can mean a very finite lifetime for data on USBs or solid state cards.

So if the clients bring such back to you in a few years time, you may not be able to do any transfer anyway, that's the point. Neither will anybody else. No, it may not be your responsibility to guarantee total future proofing for them, (which may not be possible anyway) but I assume at the very least that if you supply content on such as USB, you make any clients aware that without active archiving within (say) 5 years, there is an increasing chance of the device becoming unplayable?

As a final thought, when I buy a new car, the supplier will not give me another copy of it if I don't look after it, have it serviced properly or it becomes obsolete. If it is properly looked after it will last for years, but it is up to me to cover the cost of that and I really don't see much difference with a video product that I supply.

When I buy a new car, I don't expect it to last forever, but I do expect the manufacturer will have given some thought to lifespan. I expect them (for example) to take some care about anti-corrosion proofing, and would expect spare part availability to be reasonably guaranteed for a fair period after it ceases to be manufactured.

If I was the client, same here. If I'd paid money for the product, I'd expect the supplier to give some thought to lifespan.

Right from the start I've agreed that such as file delivery on USB has a place for "here & now" jobs, and for such I personally have found such as dropbox even more useful. But for finished products with future value (and weddings must be the most obvious) I can't think of anything (currently) better than BluRay for HD, DVD for SD.

That's not just in the clients interests (re longevity), but in the suppliers as well (optical discs are cheapest/GB blank media by far).

[Roger Gunkel]

I think from reading your detailed response David, that we are basically in agreement on most aspects. I am not convinced of the longevity of Solid state storage, which is why I never supply a usb copy only, on the rare occasion that I do get asked. I'm also pretty sure that in a comparatively short period of time, there will be new hard formats available to store the higher quality footage that is being produced.

Roger

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Roger Gunkel

I'm also pretty sure that in a comparatively short period of time, there will be new hard formats available to store the higher quality footage that is being produced.

It's difficult to think what it will be, and I'm not aware of anything totally new even on the horizon.

There are really three basic candidates for data storage at the moment - magnetic (tape or hard drive), solid state, and optical.

Hard drives are not liked for long term storage because of moving parts - put one in a drawer for a year or two and it may refuse to spin.

Panasonic famously declared "tape is dead!" well over ten years ago, which turned out to be highly optimistic with hindsight. Well, now it may not be much used in cameras, but it's far from dead in the professional data storage world (including video) in the form of such as LTO tape. (And that's not likely to change soon - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...echnology.html )

Solid state has more or less swept the board recently for in camera storage as the price has come down and performance has gone up. But cost/GB is still relatively high, and longevity questionable, which all goes against it from an archive point of view.

Which leaves optical disc. Panasonic and Sony have recently announced a new professional solution based on BluRay, which may be a viable alternative to LTO for professional use.

But for the consumer? I just can't see anything even on the horizon offering the cost/longevity as BluRay/DVD does.

I remember hearing rumours a few years ago of "WORM" solid state - write once/read many - where the writing action permanently burnt microscopic links within the chips, rather than transferring packets of charge into wells to form the data. It was seen as maybe the ultimate in long term storage, but never seems to have got any further.

[Peter Siamidis]

My problem with optical archive solutions is that the pricing tends to be ridiculous. Seems like most here film weddings for their business so I can understand that you guys don't need large archive solutions. But in my case I film content for my websites which I really need to archive. So far I've been sticking to portable hdd's and dvd/bluray for my archiving needs because other methods are priced for billionaire corporations. So I keep two archives at two different bank vaults in both optical and magnetic formats. It would be great if a true archival format came out and was affordable, but I just doubt that will be the case. So I stick to my current method which I update as new cheap tech comes along. I'll leave the optical discs as they are but eventually replace the magnetic backups with larger portable hdd's as they become available. I figure this way I don't have to worry about my hdd archives going bad over time as every few years I basically dump them all to new fresh hdd's. I had started with 500 3.5" hdd's many years ago, then shifted it all to 1tb portable hdd's, and currently I'm on 2tb hdd's. Someday I'll shift all the magnetic backups to 4tb portable hdd's. It's worked well for me so far, and I keep two sets of everything at two banks in two different towns for extra redundancy.

I'll keep an eye on future archiving mediums but as I said I'm not expecting them to have affordable pricing.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Peter Siamidis

I'll leave the optical discs as they are but eventually replace the magnetic backups with larger portable hdd's as they become available. I figure this way I don't have to worry about my hdd archives going bad over time as every few years I basically dump them all to new fresh hdd's.

I'll keep an eye on future archiving mediums but as I said I'm not expecting them to have affordable pricing.

Yes, as you seem only too aware, the problem with hdd's is that you can't just store them for long without attention - they need to be periodically copied for reliability.

I suspect you may be exactly the sort of person the Sony/Panasonic announcement was aimed at. With that, the expectation is you really will be able to put it on the shelf and have some guarantee that the data will be readable in a claimed 50 years. Assuming a player still exists to make use of it....... :-)

May be more expensive than hdd's in the first instance, but if it saves the hassle and expense of copying everything every few years....?