Archiving EX files

[Jay Gladwell]

I just finished reading several threads on various methods for archiving the files from EX cameras.

Considering the suggestion made in another thread about cheaper cards, why not use the Kensington adapter with Extreme III cards for archiving? Nothing to break down (hard drives) and nothing to deteriorate (DVDs/Blu-rays)!

Just a thought.

[Craig Seeman]

It really depends on your budget.
16 GB can go on two DL-DVD for $3-$4. That's a lot less money than a 16GB SDHC. Then you have to make tiny labels too and some why to file them orderly.

I use surface printable DL-DVD so date of shoot and client name is on the surface of the disk. I put them in protective sleeve and in to my Vaultz file cabinet (holds 660 discs I believe). At some point I'll move to Blu-ray.

[Bill Ravens]

Craig...

your solution is fine, given that you don't factor the time you spend prepping and burning those DVD's. Bluray will be MUCH worse because of the time it takes to render and burn a Bluray format. Have you ever burned a bluray? Render times are on the order of 8-12 hours. I don't know what your hourly rates are, either for your time or the time on your machines, but, I'd be willing to bet it's not negligible. Perhaps after you factor this in, SDHC will look a little better. Or don't you value your own time? SDHC is available instantly, out of the camera, stores the native files...the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[George Kroonder]

Bill, I believe Craig means burning data to a BDR to backup projects/footage. Not so much using "playable" BluRay discs as backup.

George/

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

It really depends on your budget.
16 GB can go on two DL-DVD for $3-$4. That's a lot less money than a 16GB SDHC. Then you have to make tiny labels too and some why to file them orderly.

I use surface printable DL-DVD so date of shoot and client name is on the surface of the disk. I put them in protective sleeve and in to my Vaultz file cabinet (holds 660 discs I believe). At some point I'll move to Blu-ray.

Craig, you missed my point. Given the frailties of tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and hard drives what would be better, more secure in the long run than SDHC cards?

One 8GB card cost $80 (16GB $140). Amortize that and you're talking pennies a day. Seems a small price to pay for the most secure option available at this time. Besides, the cost is passed along to the client.

All things considered, how long will a SDHC card last compared to the other options?

[Ted OMalley]

I like using RAID storage on hard drives. Currently, I use two different ones. The first is this one - Thecus N2050 - Experience the speed of 3Gb/s on the world first eSATA on DAS | NAS server, Storage server expert

- which is just a housing. A pair of 1.5 TB drives in a RAID 1 and you have a redundant 1.5 TB drive solution for about $500. If a drive fails, just replace it. Data stays intact.

That's enough storage to hold the contents of nearly FIFTY 32GB SDHC cards. Plus, you can connect to your PC via the external SATA connector - making it very fast storage. Storing that much on 32BG cards would run $7000!

If you PC doesn't have external SATA, you can also use USB, but now your transfer rate will be a little slower.

Alternatively, there are several NAS solutions as well (network-attached-storage), but now you are limited to your network throughput. I have all GB networking, but the external SATA is still MUCH faster.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

Craig, you missed my point. Given the frailties of tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, and hard drives what would be better, more secure in the long run than SDHC cards?

One 8GB card cost $80 (16GB $140). Amortize that and you're talking pennies a day. Seems a small price to pay for the most secure option available at this time. Besides, the cost is passed along to the client.

All things considered, how long will a SDHC card last compared to the other options?

Without going into a diatribe here, a couple of things to consider:

The cost per GB as compared to SDLT or Blu-Ray DVD (Both data) is much higher.

And solid state memory is susceptible to any form of static electricity. As unlikely as this sounds, I do a lot of still photography and have had two cards scrambled while inserting them into the card reader. It didn't completely erase the disk but it scramble enough of the user bits that initially my computer wouldn't recognize it and then when we finally did get it to work I had lost about a third of the images.

For that reason the largest card I use in my still camera is 1GB.

[Bill Ravens]

Transcend 16Gb SDHC class 6 cards are available for $35, at a well known vendor. These are suitable for use in the kensington reader on an EX1. You can't convince me that an SDHC is any more or less susceptible to EMF than a hard drive. The SDHC has no moving parts and will last forever in the same kind of protected environment that you have to archive a hard drive, not to mention that it's quite a bit smaller.

I store every customer on their own drive/card. Each of my customers buys their archival media, so, they have a choice of SDHC or hard drive. I don't share drives between customers.
And for anyone who thinks that a RAID drive supported by the cost of NAS storage is a cheap solution, guess I'm wasting my breath. The non-recurring costs, alone, are a back breaker on a deal like that. The only time that's cost effective is for a business with an overhead that's probably bigger than all the capital in my business.

[George Kroonder]

Chuck, I'm with you on that. Tape is still the best medium to archive to. Even though the LTO or SDLT drives are an investment, regular media is cheap and guaranteed for at least a decade. HP warrants LTO-4 Ultrium 1.6TB RW and WORM cartridges for up to 30 years archival life.

For corrupted data I have two words for you: Stellar Phoenix.

Bill, as to SDHC cards or flash memory in general; they've not proved themselves like tape has. How badly would your client freak out if you had sold them archiving only to find that data is corrupted after a few years.

Kingston states that "Flash storage devices are rated for up to 10 years under normal use", but "Important information should also be backed up on other media for long-term safekeeping". Normal use may be regularly writing data to the card (as it dynamically remaps failing sectors).

I however have no specific reliability/retention data on (new) SDHC cards, but IMHO when things get cheaper they don't usually get more reliable. I'm not saying that SDHC cards specifically are getting less reliable, just that I don't know.

George/

[Bruce Rawlings]

I think that now the SDHC cards are useable we can think about keeping the original cards. My clients pay an all in price for production services and it won't be long before the cost of cards can be absorbed in general charges.

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

You can't convince me that an SDHC is any more or less susceptible to EMF than a hard drive. The SDHC has no moving parts and will last forever in the same kind of protected environment that you have to archive a hard drive, not to mention that it's quite a bit smaller.

That's my point, exactly, Bill!

The SDHC card appears to have all other media options beat insofar as shelf-life goes. Granted, the cost may be higher, but how much are your (client's) files worth. And talk about a time saver...!

[Tyler Franco]

I used to burn to DL-DVD. Because of the amount of time it takes to burn and the unreliableness I found with discs, I've switched to just backing up on two separate hard drives, putting them in anti-static bags and shelving them in two different places.

[Jay Gladwell]

Originally Posted by George Kroonder

Kingston states that "Flash storage devices are rated for up to 10 years under normal use..."/

"Under normal use" is the key factor here. Having done some additional research, the life span of flash memory is dependent on the number of reads/writes. Using it as an archiving medium, meaning the read/write access would be at an ultra minimum at worst. Therefore, the life span of the card would be extended significantly!

[Bill Ravens]

Exactly right, Jay. The limitation to flash memory lifetime is the number of read/writes, and even that is about equal to a hard drive. As a storage medium, it's darn near perfect.

As far as your conservative approach, George, I wish you the best. My customers and I are quite happy with this solution. Personally, I despise tape. It's unreliable, it exhibits random dropouts, its bulky, heat sensitive, and sllllooooowwwww. And talk about sensitivity to magnetic fields...yikes! Maybe you should try super 16 film. You don't need storage media with it.

[Craig Seeman]

I have 6 computers here so burning to DL-DVD isn't too much of a problem. It's not fast though. It certainly doesn't prevent me from using the computer for other things either.

It's frustrating to have to remember to change discs every 30 minutes or so and type out a new label and then move the disc to a printer. It'll be a bit less of a bother with Blu-ray. I don't trust hard drives as back up. Even two of them. I can see hard drive and optical disc but not hard drive alone.

Again cost of SDHC is probably in line with using HDCAM but some clients aren't going to want to pay an additional $40/hr of media used. They SHOULD but many won't. Of course if they will then certainly that's a reasonable way to go.

So how are you labeling the SDHC cards and what are you storing them in (neat and orderly)?