Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MXF+JPEG-2000+HDD = Future of Video Preservation?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the archivists-know-how-to-party dept.

Anonymous Archivist writes "Media Matters, a technical consultancy specializing in archival audio and video material, recently completed a Mellon Foundation funded Digital Video Reformatting Preservation Project for the Dance Heritage Coalition. They conclude that MXF is the recommended container format, JPEG-2000 is the recommended encoding format and HDD is the recommended storage media. It's a very valuable series of experiments and offers a strong indication of where the archival preservation of analogue video is heading."

2 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Why HDD? by Orinthe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The HDD recommendation doesn't seem to make much sense. The article talks about cost-per-gigabyte, but obviously it is much cheaper to use CDRs or DVDRs. This is video preservation, after all, not storing indefinitely for video /editing/, which would require a more malleable storage medium. And before someone points out that there are studies showing that the longevity of CDR/DVDR discs is questionable, surely proper storage of discs (and not buying the Best Buy free-after-rebate special) would be sufficient. HDD, after all, is susceptible to head crashes, and being a magnetic medium can be more easily overwritten.

    --
    SELECT quote.text AS sig FROM quote NATURAL JOIN attribute WHERE attribute.description = 'witty';
    0 rows returned
  2. Intraframe vs. interframe by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For whatever reason (I'm not a video expert) many people prefer intraframe codecs for archival. As you probably guessed, Motion JPEG 2000 just treats each video frame as a still image and compresses it with JPEG 2000.

    Dirac will give much better compression that JPEG 2000, but it also introduces the possibility of interframe artifacts.