Mike Johnston addressesd the issue of CD quality just recently. Here is
a link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-05-09-04.shtml
I have run into the same problem with some data files from work. A
couple of tips, good quality CDs do seem to help. Burn AT LEAST two CDs
and check them to make sure that all files are readable on both, many
times you will find a file unreadable even immediatly after writing. If
you have two readable CDs chances are in a few years, that you will be
able to recover the needed file off of at least one of them. Yes, this
is a royal pain in the ass, but it does seem to be the safest way.
Frankly this is one of the major reasons that I have not moved from film
to digital. Until an affordable and truly reliable way of storing data
is available I remain hesitant to commit all my eggs into one basket. At
least with film I can always rescan if needed.
Brad Davis wrote:
>I've been using CD's for archiving for at least 6 years. When I started, I
>used an HP burner that worked at 2X. It still works. In fact, if a CD
>won't read on another burner or CD drive, it may read on the old HP. This
>doesn't surprise me, running slower would seem likely to be more robust.
>But, as I try to access older CD's, I consistently find files that I can't
>open - with any CD reader, even the HP. While CD's written by the HP are
>likely to have fewer bad files, it seems that virtually all of the older
>CD's have some files that are unreadable, or if read, can't be opened by
>photoshop for one reason or another. It seems that the question isn't if I
>am going to lose files, but how many on a given CD.
>Now, I may be doing things that increase my chances of losing a file, or
>even an entire CD, but I haven't been able to identify what I might be
>doing. I pretty successfully avoid scratches, and beyond that, I keep the
>CD's in books that have sleeves in them. They are stored at room
>temperature which is never above 75 degrees, nor below 60 and the humidity
>remains in a range around 40% - not a lot higher or lower.
>I've always purchased the more expensive name brand CD's, even though I am
>somewhat suspicious that on occasion what I got was no better than the no
>name sold by Fry's out here. In talking to others, I hear the same stories
>irrespective of brand of CD used.
>CD's written by companies (that contain software, such as my Photoshop CD)
>seem to do better, I rarely have any trouble, and on the rare occasion I do,
>putting it in the old HP has always taken care of it. I've never had to
>request a replacement CD and I don't back them up - I probably should.
>I have been in the habit of making multiple backups, so I haven't lost
>anything of value - yet.
>I've been considering DVD's, but reading about the problems they many have,
>they seem to be an even more fugitive medium.
>Someone must have a solution, must have found way to reduce the losses. The
>only way I can see to reduce my losses is to write everything on my old HP
>burner and make multiple copies - perhaps 4 copies each. That seems a bit
>much as it reduces the effective capacity of a CD to about 160 megabytes.
>Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection
>of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.
> Henri Poincare --Science and Hypothesis
Unsubscribe by mail to email@example.com, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or