I’ve been telling people for years that the entire 21st century is at risk of being a lost century. Even personally I can’t guarantee my data will be with me 20 years from now even though I back it up. If you care about a photo or document, print it and throw it it a box. As I get older I find more of an obsession with physical media from a preservation point of view. Because I know my books and pictures will be around 50 years from now. Digital files not so much.
I agree with you in general, as most people don’t use physical media. However, those of us that do, are probably pretty secure in our legacy.
I have digital files that have been with me for over a quarter of a century, first through repeated copies to new media formats, then to more sophisticated backup systems. In the past few years, I’ve been alternating backing up to cloud services and then to local USB disks; the backup program is a statically compiled, monolithic program with few dependencies. Recently, I found a solution to the encrypted restore by survivors. I even have a README with instructions.
I’m secure in the knowledge that my 3TB of painstakingly curated collection of foot porn will be available to future researchers, for the betterment of mankind.
Redundancy. I have 4 drives and the older two drives are always a backup of music and media. I can lose all the save games and softwares since they’ll be outdated anyways but memories need to be preserved.
The kind of media I don’t have backup of is from my Handycam tapes since they no longer make the software and I don’t know how to digitize them in any other way.
The kind of media I don’t have backup of is from my Handycam tapes since they no longer make the software and I don’t know how to digitize them in any other way.
Do this if desperate, but see below first: Magnetic tape cassettes? Are they standard? Then just stick them in an audio player and record the signal— Or actually, they’re probably 8mm, or DV, or something— So then rip the reader head out of an audio player, scroll through the tape at a constant rate, and digitize that signal (for as many tracks as needed). Don’t do anything silly, like using too much force or sticking too strong a magnet next to them, of course. As long as you’ve got the signal, you can worry about decoding it later if you lose the originals— Get some nerdy college student to figure it out, or wait for someone else with the same problem to post their GIT repository.
Easier: Check if the Internet Archive has a copy of the software. It looks like they have quite a few Sony Handycam CDROMs. Maybe you’ll find a compatible model. Run it on an old Windows VM or computer if you need. “No longer make the software” sounds odd; Software like that is made once and then distributed.
(Or: Presumably you can still watch the tapes? Does the camera not have video output that you pass through some sort of capture box? — Though that of course would be lossy.)
Or: Wikipedia suggests the “Handycam” brand was used for multiple format standards, like “Video8” or “Hi8” or whatever. So just search Nile.com (or your personal favourite exploitation-powered online storefront) for “NameOfFormat Digitizer”, and wait for the order to to arrive. Here’s a couple articles from the first search results: IndieWire, VHSConverters. Here’s a machine that supports a couple formats, and has licensed a very reputable brand KodakPhotoPlus. And here’s a service that will apparently do it for you: LegacyBox. — Pricey, maybe, but how much time and money are you already spending, and how much are the tapes worth to you?
I’ve been telling people for years that the entire 21st century is at risk of being a lost century. Even personally I can’t guarantee my data will be with me 20 years from now even though I back it up. If you care about a photo or document, print it and throw it it a box. As I get older I find more of an obsession with physical media from a preservation point of view. Because I know my books and pictures will be around 50 years from now. Digital files not so much.
LOCKSS and KISS, though. Flash chips don’t last forever but are pretty durable, and so are optical media as long as they’re the right material. SSDs decay and HDDs fail, but for magnetic platter media even if the head or motor crashes there’s always the old magnetic microscope in a pinch. USB’s not going anywhere, and if you have four or five copies that you don’t completely neglect and don’t store in the same physical place, presumably you’ll have the chance to notice and take corrective measures if any of them start failing or are at risk.
I don’t actually know that an individual book or picture will still be around in 50 years; Fire, flooding, insects, acidic paper, low-quality ink maybe— Digital stuff’s fragile, but so is physical stuff. Stick it in the attic, and the heat’ll speed up any chemical reactions and probably make it cozier for insects; Stick it in the basement, and the condensation will get you mildew and rot. By contrast, having a flash drive accidentally survive a trip through a washer and dryer is a pretty common occurrence, and I’ve yet to lose a drive even with that level of negligence. Material compatibility’s one of the very most basic parts of a set of very precise manufacturing techniques, tin whiskers seem pretty rare these days, the really scarily insidious stuff like hydrogen embrittlement is super improbable, and most biological forms of decay haven’t adapted to eating cured epoxy and monocrystalline silicon yet.
At least I sorta know how a flash cell or hard drive platter is meant to be structured; Who knows what weird organic reactions and unstable or slowly diffusing molecules are happening in the pile of chemical pigments on a sheet of likely-acidic bleached cellulose and cheap ink or toner, and whether it will still be legible to human eyes in however many years? Plus, a printed photo or document starts fading the very instant it’s created, and it gets a little worse every time you touch it with sweaty human hands or look at it while exhaling moist human breath and corrosive enzymatic saliva droplets under a white LED lamp or G-type star shooting out ionizing UV rays. Digital failures tend to be catastrophic, but at least up until the moment it fails, you can make sure that it is the exact same picture or text— And you can make many, many copies very cheaply, all of them very physically durable compared to paper, and know that they are all the exact same picture and text.
That said, I absolutely agree with your overall assessment that most of the information in the early 21st century, including most of the public Internet/WWW, most likely either will be or already is… Maybe not technically lost, per se, given how much caching and saving happens on private clients, but certainly rendered inaccessible.
Ideally I’d really love to see a return of microfiche, actually, using modern polymers and metallization. I’ve been meaning to look into that for a while now. At a reasonable scale for optical viewing, you could fit… much, much more content than you might expect, and do it several times over, in an entirely reasonable number of pages. Your comment actually spurred me to finally think of a practical way of printing that— for years before, I’d been trying to idly figure out a process based on photomasks and nanoparticles suspended in resin, which had always felt like a very messy and tricky idea, but I just thought of another idea– So thanks for providing some inspiration there.
Even data from the Apollo missions was found to be either degrading (tapes) or the formats were forgotten and the systems that could read them were gone. They had to do research into rediscovering how to read the data and hunt around for the few antique systems remaining to read the tapes.
PCM, ASCII, and straight RGBA bitmap encodings aren’t going anywhere. By extension, derived formats like WAV, UTF-8, and word processor files and webpage HTML are mostly fine too. The formats are structurally simple enough that even if the associated file extensions were somehow to be forgotten, all you’d need to do to invent them again is hand the file to a bored nerd over the weekend.
I think you kinda got the BBC and NASA problems backwards. The BBC’s had a couple of prominent incidents where digital “preservation” that was supposed to be eternal couldn’t even be opened anymore after a couple of years, like their Domesday Book/Project application thingy. They’ve also lost a bunch of old shows, like early Dr. Who episodes, I think. NASA didn’t just forget how to read the Apollo tapes; they overwrote them to reuse the tapes, as was their standard practice at the time. The original signal and tapes were very HD (or analog), but most of the videos we have today are from the TV camera that they pointed at their own TV screen last-minute when they realized they didn’t have an adapter for broadcast— The equivalent of a grainy cell phone photo of a screenshot, basically.
The BBC and NASA incidents happened in an era before computers were a ubiquitous commodity product. So, everyone and their cat was basically inventing their own obscure single-implemention proprietary file formats at that time. Nowadays we have established technical standards, as well as formats that have already sorta stood the test of time based on their utility and simplicity— and millions of people who already know how to read them— so that particular vector for bitrot isn’t really as much of an issue anymore.
…That said, I think I sorta missed your point. What you’re really saying is that stewardship of digital records is much trickier and riskier than stewardship of physical records— and that results in stuff being lost. And that is absolutely true.
Many of the most culturally significant and creatively valuable works of literature, film, painting, and other forms of art and even science and engineering throughout history were widely panned, ridiculed, or simply unknown by their contemporaries.
“Will to maintain” comes from human people. And frankly, we’re vacillating, self-destructive, pleasure-seeking idiots with furthermore awfully finite practical limitations about what we can and want to have the will to do.
Lack of human eyes on something at a particular moment in time does not at all imply lack of its innate value. It doesn’t even guarantee lack of human eyes on it at a later date. Imagine if Da Vinci’s private notebooks, or Lovelace’s programs, or Van Gogh’s paintings, or Fermat’s humblebrag, or Melville’s writing and Dickinson’s poetry, or even Anne Frank’s diary, were saved on MicroSD instead of as physical hardcopy.
If there is a will to maintain it, it will endure. If there is no will, should it endure?
“Everything dies unless significantly effort and resources are constantly expended to maintain it” … Is not a world that I think I would prefer to live in.
…It would be an empty world and yet a violent world, filled with only the most trite and self-serving patterns designed and evolved to extract a profit in the briefest moment before they vanish. Even the stuff that does get “maintained” would have no fixed form, no verifiable truth, and no shared cultural experience or memory and heritage— Think of the streaming services that edit a film after it’s already been released, and imagine doing that to something like, E.G., Citizen Kane. Many of the things that we take for granted today— and probably most of our sense of cultural permanence, heritage, continuity, and memory— Might not really be possible in such a world.
And frankly, that’s going to bleed over into our politics too. Focusing exclusively on the single instant of the present because you no longer really have access to the past is a great way to make lots of selfish, impulsive decisions with disastrous consequence. It might even cause some degree of technological and cultural stagnation, as due to both psychological preferences and economic inequities, “will to maintain” is probably going to be heavily biased towards things that are already part of the status quo.
Physical media is at least somewhat inherently stable without constant maintenance on culturally relevant timescales, but digital media isn’t. At the same time that digital information technologies allow vastly greater quantities of valuable information to be assembled and disseminated, they also provide no practical way of passively preserving basically any of it. The invention of writing is fundamental to civilization, but the way it works is changing. Compared to the previous balance of capacities, we are now culturally capable of experiencing much, much more than we were before, but guaranteed to remember basically none of it— This is dangerous, or at least concerning and troubling.
Life is the perpetual fight against entropy, in all its forms. Meaningful information requires a lot of effort, work, insight, and feeling to put into words and pictures. Letting it be forgotten means forgetting who and what and why you are— Just because you can’t spare the CPUs and the technicians to keep its server up.
This comment thread wasn’t about that one videographer. It was about backup techniques and data preservation practices in general, and worrying trends in that direction.
OP: I’ve been telling people for years that the entire 21st century is at risk of being a lost century.
There is a will but there aren’t enough people with enough brain power to actually do the steps needed.
Should it endure? I don’t know, maybe the last few decades should be forgotten.
Crazy how a single event sometimes reminds people of bigger problems, huh?
Digital media, where we store basically everything we care about, is hugely, hugely volatile, unreliable, and fragile. But you never notice it until you’re reminded of it, and then you really notice it. This story reminded people of it.
The reminder to stay grounded is probably also healthy, but I do think you’re missing the point of this comment thread.
I’ve been telling people for years that the entire 21st century is at risk of being a lost century. Even personally I can’t guarantee my data will be with me 20 years from now even though I back it up. If you care about a photo or document, print it and throw it it a box. As I get older I find more of an obsession with physical media from a preservation point of view. Because I know my books and pictures will be around 50 years from now. Digital files not so much.
I used to think this, but now, less so.
I agree with you in general, as most people don’t use physical media. However, those of us that do, are probably pretty secure in our legacy.
I have digital files that have been with me for over a quarter of a century, first through repeated copies to new media formats, then to more sophisticated backup systems. In the past few years, I’ve been alternating backing up to cloud services and then to local USB disks; the backup program is a statically compiled, monolithic program with few dependencies. Recently, I found a solution to the encrypted restore by survivors. I even have a README with instructions.
I’m secure in the knowledge that my 3TB of painstakingly curated collection of foot porn will be available to future researchers, for the betterment of mankind.
Thank you for your service !
We’re in the presence of greatness 🫡
Redundancy. I have 4 drives and the older two drives are always a backup of music and media. I can lose all the save games and softwares since they’ll be outdated anyways but memories need to be preserved.
The kind of media I don’t have backup of is from my Handycam tapes since they no longer make the software and I don’t know how to digitize them in any other way.
Do this if desperate, but see below first:
Magnetic tape cassettes? Are they standard? Then just stick them in an audio player and record the signal— Or actually, they’re probably 8mm, or DV, or something— So then rip the reader head out of an audio player, scroll through the tape at a constant rate, and digitize that signal (for as many tracks as needed). Don’t do anything silly, like using too much force or sticking too strong a magnet next to them, of course. As long as you’ve got the signal, you can worry about decoding it later if you lose the originals— Get some nerdy college student to figure it out, or wait for someone else with the same problem to post their GIT repository.Easier: Check if the Internet Archive has a copy of the software. It looks like they have quite a few Sony Handycam CDROMs. Maybe you’ll find a compatible model. Run it on an old Windows VM or computer if you need. “No longer make the software” sounds odd; Software like that is made once and then distributed.
(Or: Presumably you can still watch the tapes? Does the camera not have video output that you pass through some sort of capture box? — Though that of course would be lossy.)
Or: Wikipedia suggests the “Handycam” brand was used for multiple format standards, like “Video8” or “Hi8” or whatever. So just search Nile.com (or your personal favourite exploitation-powered online storefront) for “NameOfFormat Digitizer”, and wait for the order to to arrive. Here’s a couple articles from the first search results: IndieWire, VHSConverters. Here’s a machine that supports a couple formats, and has licensed a very reputable brand KodakPhotoPlus. And here’s a service that will apparently do it for you: LegacyBox. — Pricey, maybe, but how much time and money are you already spending, and how much are the tapes worth to you?
Thanks, i think the archive + vm would work. What I meant was there’s no modern software that supports current gen OS.
I’m not in the US so legacy box is out, thanks for sharing. I finally found a way
LOCKSS and KISS, though. Flash chips don’t last forever but are pretty durable, and so are optical media as long as they’re the right material. SSDs decay and HDDs fail, but for magnetic platter media even if the head or motor crashes there’s always the old magnetic microscope in a pinch. USB’s not going anywhere, and if you have four or five copies that you don’t completely neglect and don’t store in the same physical place, presumably you’ll have the chance to notice and take corrective measures if any of them start failing or are at risk.
I don’t actually know that an individual book or picture will still be around in 50 years; Fire, flooding, insects, acidic paper, low-quality ink maybe— Digital stuff’s fragile, but so is physical stuff. Stick it in the attic, and the heat’ll speed up any chemical reactions and probably make it cozier for insects; Stick it in the basement, and the condensation will get you mildew and rot. By contrast, having a flash drive accidentally survive a trip through a washer and dryer is a pretty common occurrence, and I’ve yet to lose a drive even with that level of negligence. Material compatibility’s one of the very most basic parts of a set of very precise manufacturing techniques, tin whiskers seem pretty rare these days, the really scarily insidious stuff like hydrogen embrittlement is super improbable, and most biological forms of decay haven’t adapted to eating cured epoxy and monocrystalline silicon yet.
At least I sorta know how a flash cell or hard drive platter is meant to be structured; Who knows what weird organic reactions and unstable or slowly diffusing molecules are happening in the pile of chemical pigments on a sheet of likely-acidic bleached cellulose and cheap ink or toner, and whether it will still be legible to human eyes in however many years? Plus, a printed photo or document starts fading the very instant it’s created, and it gets a little worse every time you touch it with sweaty human hands or look at it while exhaling moist human breath and corrosive enzymatic saliva droplets under a white LED lamp or G-type star shooting out ionizing UV rays. Digital failures tend to be catastrophic, but at least up until the moment it fails, you can make sure that it is the exact same picture or text— And you can make many, many copies very cheaply, all of them very physically durable compared to paper, and know that they are all the exact same picture and text.
That said, I absolutely agree with your overall assessment that most of the information in the early 21st century, including most of the public Internet/WWW, most likely either will be or already is… Maybe not technically lost, per se, given how much caching and saving happens on private clients, but certainly rendered inaccessible.
Ideally I’d really love to see a return of microfiche, actually, using modern polymers and metallization. I’ve been meaning to look into that for a while now. At a reasonable scale for optical viewing, you could fit… much, much more content than you might expect, and do it several times over, in an entirely reasonable number of pages. Your comment actually spurred me to finally think of a practical way of printing that— for years before, I’d been trying to idly figure out a process based on photomasks and nanoparticles suspended in resin, which had always felt like a very messy and tricky idea, but I just thought of another idea– So thanks for providing some inspiration there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_dark_age
This is a hot take
Even data from the Apollo missions was found to be either degrading (tapes) or the formats were forgotten and the systems that could read them were gone. They had to do research into rediscovering how to read the data and hunt around for the few antique systems remaining to read the tapes.
deleted by creator
The Apollo mission data and BBC TV recordings weren’t considered important enough at the time to preserve them, it wasn’t until decades later that people realized they were but by then the BBC had destroyed or overwritten much of them and NASA had forgotten how to read much of the data. Then there was the notorious loss of many master recordings by great artists in a fire because the company was just too cheap and lazy to store them properly.
PCM, ASCII, and straight RGBA bitmap encodings aren’t going anywhere. By extension, derived formats like WAV, UTF-8, and word processor files and webpage HTML are mostly fine too. The formats are structurally simple enough that even if the associated file extensions were somehow to be forgotten, all you’d need to do to invent them again is hand the file to a bored nerd over the weekend.
I think you kinda got the BBC and NASA problems backwards. The BBC’s had a couple of prominent incidents where digital “preservation” that was supposed to be eternal couldn’t even be opened anymore after a couple of years, like their Domesday Book/Project application thingy. They’ve also lost a bunch of old shows, like early Dr. Who episodes, I think. NASA didn’t just forget how to read the Apollo tapes; they overwrote them to reuse the tapes, as was their standard practice at the time. The original signal and tapes were very HD (or analog), but most of the videos we have today are from the TV camera that they pointed at their own TV screen last-minute when they realized they didn’t have an adapter for broadcast— The equivalent of a grainy cell phone photo of a screenshot, basically.
The BBC and NASA incidents happened in an era before computers were a ubiquitous commodity product. So, everyone and their cat was basically inventing their own obscure single-implemention proprietary file formats at that time. Nowadays we have established technical standards, as well as formats that have already sorta stood the test of time based on their utility and simplicity— and millions of people who already know how to read them— so that particular vector for bitrot isn’t really as much of an issue anymore.
…That said, I think I sorta missed your point. What you’re really saying is that stewardship of digital records is much trickier and riskier than stewardship of physical records— and that results in stuff being lost. And that is absolutely true.
Many of the most culturally significant and creatively valuable works of literature, film, painting, and other forms of art and even science and engineering throughout history were widely panned, ridiculed, or simply unknown by their contemporaries.
“Will to maintain” comes from human people. And frankly, we’re vacillating, self-destructive, pleasure-seeking idiots with furthermore awfully finite practical limitations about what we can and want to have the will to do.
Lack of human eyes on something at a particular moment in time does not at all imply lack of its innate value. It doesn’t even guarantee lack of human eyes on it at a later date. Imagine if Da Vinci’s private notebooks, or Lovelace’s programs, or Van Gogh’s paintings, or Fermat’s humblebrag, or Melville’s writing and Dickinson’s poetry, or even Anne Frank’s diary, were saved on MicroSD instead of as physical hardcopy.
“Everything dies unless significantly effort and resources are constantly expended to maintain it” … Is not a world that I think I would prefer to live in.
…It would be an empty world and yet a violent world, filled with only the most trite and self-serving patterns designed and evolved to extract a profit in the briefest moment before they vanish. Even the stuff that does get “maintained” would have no fixed form, no verifiable truth, and no shared cultural experience or memory and heritage— Think of the streaming services that edit a film after it’s already been released, and imagine doing that to something like, E.G., Citizen Kane. Many of the things that we take for granted today— and probably most of our sense of cultural permanence, heritage, continuity, and memory— Might not really be possible in such a world.
And frankly, that’s going to bleed over into our politics too. Focusing exclusively on the single instant of the present because you no longer really have access to the past is a great way to make lots of selfish, impulsive decisions with disastrous consequence. It might even cause some degree of technological and cultural stagnation, as due to both psychological preferences and economic inequities, “will to maintain” is probably going to be heavily biased towards things that are already part of the status quo.
Physical media is at least somewhat inherently stable without constant maintenance on culturally relevant timescales, but digital media isn’t. At the same time that digital information technologies allow vastly greater quantities of valuable information to be assembled and disseminated, they also provide no practical way of passively preserving basically any of it. The invention of writing is fundamental to civilization, but the way it works is changing. Compared to the previous balance of capacities, we are now culturally capable of experiencing much, much more than we were before, but guaranteed to remember basically none of it— This is dangerous, or at least concerning and troubling.
Life is the perpetual fight against entropy, in all its forms. Meaningful information requires a lot of effort, work, insight, and feeling to put into words and pictures. Letting it be forgotten means forgetting who and what and why you are— Just because you can’t spare the CPUs and the technicians to keep its server up.
deleted by creator
This comment thread wasn’t about that one videographer. It was about backup techniques and data preservation practices in general, and worrying trends in that direction.
There is a will but there aren’t enough people with enough brain power to actually do the steps needed. Should it endure? I don’t know, maybe the last few decades should be forgotten.
Mistakes are usually the stuff that should be remembered
Fair
deleted by creator
Crazy how a single event sometimes reminds people of bigger problems, huh?
Digital media, where we store basically everything we care about, is hugely, hugely volatile, unreliable, and fragile. But you never notice it until you’re reminded of it, and then you really notice it. This story reminded people of it.
The reminder to stay grounded is probably also healthy, but I do think you’re missing the point of this comment thread.