Yeah, but it was easier than scanning a closet full of negatives, wasn't it? <grin>
Redundant (RAID 1) hard drives seem to be the best way to handle archiving these days, at least for us who can not afford tetrabyte tape drives. Heck of a note when primary storage is cheaper than secondary, isn't it? -graywolf Mark Cassino wrote: > One of the things that was kicked around with the advent of digital was > the need to move data from one storage medium to another as they > become obsolete. > > A couple of days ago ago I decided to move the data off 69 CD's, which > held the "best" of my *ist-D shots for the first few months I had it, > before getting a DVD burner. > > I have to say - it was more of a hassle than I expected. I have a spare > computer here and just fed it the CD's as I was working on the main PC. > The CD's were about 5 years old and none of them were bad - but some > read fairly slowly, sometimes taking up to 15 minutes to copy onto the > hard drive, vs 3 to 5 minutes for most. A couple failed with CRC errors > on the first attempt, but then copied successfully after taking them out > and wiping them with a lens cleaning cloth. > > Now I have 42 gigs of files to burn onto a few DVD's. > > My main motivation for doing this was to make it easier to find some > images - these CD's had the original PEF's plus 16 bit final TIFF's on > them, and the files came together in a way that left room for only 5 or > 6 images per CD, with a fair amount of wasted space on each disk. > > Over all though, it took hours to copy these files. Since it was a > background task on a machine that I just use for scanning and streaming > NPR, it wasn't a major problem. But I have roughly 700 more CD's that > someday will have to be moved - if not onto DVD's then onto some future > media. > > The thought of that makes me shudder... > > - MCC > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
