Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:51:00 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>types of numbers you're working with, and you're writing to CD-R or DVD-R
>media, and you're replacing/refreshing your data once every 5 years,
>you're going to go through 15 cycles. And the process is NOT
>"lossless". No one has come up with exact figures as to how much loss is
>acceptable, but it's not uncommon to experience 1-2% loss per migration...
Larry, I'll put together the economic analysis for you in a week or two,
but in the meantime, I couldn't let this go unchallenged (despite your
other good points.) It is inaccurate to state that digital conversion is
not lossless and grossly inaccurate to say that there is a "1-2% loss per
migration".
If you use CD's - which are less reliable than a standard magnetic disk
but more reliable than non-DAT magnetic tape over short terms - there are
two types of redundancy built into the CD. I won't bore you with the math
and details of how it works, but the *uncorrected* bit error rate is about
1 in 10^(-12) or one per trillion bits. An 8.5x11" 200 dpi image should
have 3.74M pixels (raw). Some of our older research suggests than only
about 29% of the image contains "significant" information (i.e.,
information used for actual reader interpretation). The numbers may have
changed a bit, but it's probably still in the ballpark. Let's be generous
and say that 0.1% of the pixels could change an interpretation. The math
works out pretty even so that the changes of a single meaningful pixel
change are just under 1 in 10 trillion. (Want some perspective? The
estimate for number of stars in the universe is 10^(11) or ten times less
than the error rate.) Hardly a 1-2% loss.
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
|
|