On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
Okay, I've resisted getting into this discussion long enough, and I
can't stands no more!
Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING
them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any
computer-based technology. And, you could store them in shoeboxes.
Obviously, I'm a big fan of paper (exhibit A: http://www.jabberwocky.com/software/paperkey/
), but the problem with prints is that you lose something when/if
you scan them back into the digital space. It's a bit like a lossy
compression. That said, I'd take a somewhat-degraded image over no
image at all.
It's not completely relevant to your example, but speaking of recovery
from paper: a lot of the early cinema was thought to be gone forever
because the negatives and all prints were lost or had decayed over the
years (early film was printed on a guncotton base - needless to say it
was highly flammable and degraded quickly). It turns out that for
copyright reasons, some of the film companies had deposited paper
copies (essentially a photo print of each film frame) of the films
with the US Library of Congress. The archivists re-photographed these
paper prints back onto film, and managed to reconstruct the original
movies. See, for example, http://rs6.loc.gov/papr/nychome.html
David
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
