Slashdot Mirror
MXF+JPEG-2000+HDD = Future of Video Preservation?
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."
JPEG standart defines several encoding formats, which include lossless compression as well
" The Material eXchange Format (MXF) is an open file format targeted at the interchange of audio-visual material with associated data and metadata. It has been designed and implemented with the aim of improving file based interoperability between servers, workstations and other content creation devices. These improvements should result in improved workflows and result in more efficient working than is possible with today's mixed and proprietary file formats." -- What is MXF
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Recommended Storage Media: Peer to Peer network.
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
OK, let's talk archiveability. Let's talk about a medium that you can leave in a shoebox for a hundred years and read just by shining a light through it. I'm not talking hypothetical here - this technology is proven by the fact that people used it a hundred years ago and it worked. And the technology is even better now, even more stable.
I am of course talking about film. It is very very easy now to write digital images onto film, not very much more difficult than it is to scan film. There's no need to worry about whether the file format will be supported in the future, as I've already said. You don't need to shovel money into vendor's pockets every few years just to copy it to the latest trendiest type of disc. You can build a machine to project film out of junk if you need to, or you can scan it if you want a digital image and when you have a better scanner (e.g. a higher DMax), you can just scan it again.
The dude who wrote this report is just blowing smoke. He's trying to sell snake oil.
Avoiding inter-frame compression means that, if you have some small amount of data corruption, you only get one, maybe two corrupted frames of video.
When there isn't patent litigation surrounding the format.
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.