Resolution between digital and analog photographic Pictures

[buildbot]

So does just about everything, like the media used to record and store digital images.

Yes, it does. SSDs literally just lose charge over time too if not powered! Electrons are slippery little beasts.

I think the expression coined is 'digital rot'...

Yep!

But we can store multiple bit-identical copies of the “digital negative”.

Exactly! Use a filesystem like ZFS, which can checksum and correct errors in files for you, assuming you have a redundant copy configured via a mirror virtual device or literally set the number of copies per file/block to more than one.

 

[Pieter 12]

But we can store multiple bit-identical copies of the “digital negative”.

But wouldn’t one have to regularly make such copies as the previous generation ages?

 

[buildbot]

But wouldn’t one have to regularly make such copies as the previous generation ages?

There is no aging - with something like ZFS, it will detect a checksum error and replace the corrupt bits with a perfect copy of the original.

 

[mristuccia]

Indeed digital is losslessly preserved by copying it, over time, from old to new media.
This cannot be done with analog without degradation at each generation.

We can say that digital dies because its hosting environment, its world, dies.
Like all organic things, analog has a youth, an old-age and a death. That's a real life.

Aside from philosophical considerations however this conversation is old and overly covered, like others have already pointed out.

EDIT (added):
IMHO we'd be better off turning the discussion from "mpxl equivalence" to "visual experience equivalence". For me, the two experiences are different. That's the reason why both are valid tools which should be chosen according to specific goals.

 

[Godfrey]

So does just about everything, like the media used to record and store digital images.

The numbers that comprise digital images never change, and can be replicated an infinite number of times with zero loss as the medium they're stored in/on reaches end of life.

 

[B L]

I read somewhere that jpeg images will loose quality after opening and closing numbers of times. Is that so?

 

[Godfrey]

No. JPEG files lose nothing by being read and displayed. The original data in the JPEG file is untouched in such use.

Where losses occur is when you open a JPEG file, modify it, and then write out the data. That's when the nature of the JPEG compression protocol can have an effect on quality. That is, the data was already edited and compressed ... when edited again and re-compressed, some losses can occur depending on the output sizing and degree of compression you're using.

Most of the time, if you keep the quality setting high (and the compression setting therefore low, it takes many re-compression iterations to see a noticeable loss. I've tested with several popular apps creating JPEGs and in general have found that most of the better apps with compression set to 75-85% of maximum take possibly hundreds of generational re-compressions to show losses that can be detected without out a bit by bit comparison of the data.

G

 

[Pieter 12]

The numbers that comprise digital images never change, and can be replicated an infinite number of times with zero loss as the medium they're stored in/on reaches end of life.

Exactly. The medium deteriorates as I noted.

 

[rmueller]

Hi,
SilberSalz35 in Germany offers a "Apollon.14K" scan service of 35mm film. The result is a stunning 14200 x 8900 pixel image of a 36 x 24mm negative. Does the image look like coming out of a 150MP Phase One? Of course not, it has the character of analog BUT there is so much you can get out of such an image. So far I have used this with Kodak Vision 3 250D and 500T film but it seems even better with 50D stock. If folks are interested I can put some images on my dropbox and share, let me know.
Attached image is a screen shot from the SilberSalz35 web site (https://silbersalz35.com/)

Regards,
Ralf

 

[buildbot]

Exactly. The medium deteriorates as I noted.

Well, you can fix that easily and automatically, as I noted.

 

[Pieter 12]

Well, you can fix that easily and automatically, as I noted.

But not everyone has ZFS implemented.

 

[FloatingLens]

ZFS is incredibly convenient to use. I have it for my image backup server. Highly recommended.

 

[anwarp]

But not everyone has ZFS implemented.

Everything fails at some point. If it’s important enough, it should be backed up. I use my zfs based server for local storage and backup, and also have automatic backup remotely to backblaze.

 

[TimoK]

ZFS is incredibly convenient to use. I have it for my image backup server. Highly recommended.

Is so easy that I format my external USB hard disk to zfs and start to fill it with my pictures?

 

[daz7]

attached image is a screen shot from the SilberSalz35 web site (https://silbersalz35.com/)

Do they always process the photos in this annoying 'I wear tight jeans and a beard" style?
Or, can you ask them not to make your photos ugly?

 

[FloatingLens]

Is so easy that I format my external USB hard disk to zfs and start to fill it with my pictures?

If you are using a recent Linux kernel, yes.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't know what ZFS is, but on my Apple system, I have Time Machine set to continuously, incrementally backup my work as I use the system, and I use ChronoSync independently after work sessions to make a more pointed, selective backup of my work to two external archive masters with every photo session. In 20 years worth of image processing thousands (tens of thousands really) of photographs, while I've lost an occasional drive to the gods of malfeasant hardware, I have not yet lost a single digital image.

I have many thousands of film images I made in the time period 1963 to 2002, when I bought my first quality digital capture camera. I keep working at scanning it into digital format whenever I have time, but what I find is that vast amounts of it have degraded to the point of "happy to see for the memory, but too badly ruined by time and the inevitable to do much else with." Once digitized, even all that stuff remains viewable, accessible, for the rest of my Time.

Once I'm gone, I doubt whether I'm going to be worried as to whether anyone else is concerned with keeping the photo archive maintained.

G

 

[sbjornda]

I've tested with several popular apps creating JPEGs and in general have found that most of the better apps with compression set to 75-85% of maximum take possibly hundreds of generational re-compressions to show losses that can be detected without out a bit by bit comparison of the data.

I have found the same thing. It's really not an issue except perhaps for archival or forensic purposes where perhaps there may be contractual or legal implications, though I don't know of any real life examples.

Sterling

 

[Pieter 12]

I recently had a rude awakening that drives physically fail, too. No system will help there unless you are willing to go to extremes.

 

[buildbot]

I recently had a rude awakening that drives physically fail, too. No system will help there unless you are willing to go to extremes.

Ouch that sucks. And yeah, mirror drives are extreme and/or backups.
I have a fairly extreme setup, with 52.7TB in one of my ZFS pools. Currently 8 drives, in four mirrored pairs. This has saved me from one drive death so far, and a few instances of bit rot were caught and fixed.

If you are using a recent Linux kernel, yes.

Or Solaris/illumos/smartos/FreeBSD
You'd need to also use: zfs set copies=2 <dataset> in order to make sure a single drive can recover from a corrupt block using the extra copy.