Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Afterlife Is Expensive for Digital Movies

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the new-zombie-films dept.

A new study shows that storing the digital master record of a film costs much more than storing archival prints. "To store a digital master record of a movie costs about $12,514 a year, versus the $1,059 it costs to keep a conventional film master. Much worse, to keep the enormous swarm of data produced when a picture is 'born digital' -- that is, produced using all-electronic processes, rather than relying wholly or partially on film -- pushes the cost of preservation to $208,569 a year, vastly higher than the $486 it costs to toss the equivalent camera negatives, audio recordings, on-set photographs and annotated scripts of an all-film production into the cold-storage vault."

17 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps they need to learning about DUPLICATION? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems Slashdot could teach them.

  2. You know... by Omeger · · Score: 2, Funny

    DUPLICATION is a lot easier with digital forms of media. I mean, holy crap /., this is probably one of the fastest dupes in the same field of interest I've ever seen.

    1. Re:You know... by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Funny

      DUPLICATION is a lot easier with digital forms of media. I mean, holy crap /., this is probably one of the fastest dupes in the same field of interest I've ever seen.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This article isn't a dupe, it's the Directors Cut with 13 previously unseen comments added.
      There's also a limited edtion Ultimate article, with a free article on how the original article was posted.

    3. Re:You know... by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 1, Funny

      DUPLICATION is a lot easier with digital forms of media. I mean, holy crap /., this is probably one of the fastest dupes in the same field of interest I've ever seen.

      I'm sorry sir, but this was deemed an unlawful duplication and we, the DIAA (Duplication Industry Association of America) hereby demand that you pay us $10,000/character or we will be forced to take this matter to the courts. Thanks for posting with a nickname that our private investigators can to track an IP address that might possibly be yours, unless you're writing that from a public terminal in which case we're going to need the keyboard to run a DNA scan on... at your expense, of course. Assuming we find your DNA on it. If not, we'll just frame a bunch of innocent people with some evidence that we pulled out of a dark place (no, VGCats readers, not Canada.)

      We appreciate your generous donation to our worthy cause, your hard earned dollars will help to fund more pointless lawsuits against people much like yourself.

  3. dupe by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dupe

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  4. Expensive Duplicates by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 5, Funny


    Yeah, it costs a ton of money in disk space, mirroring, bandwidth, and power bills to maintain all those duplicates of the original.

    1. Re:Expensive Duplicates by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

      The obvious way to capitalize on the 4TB of data is to sell a new version every year with slightly lengthened scenes, out-takes, alternate endings, tie-ins, and boxed sets containing the previous and subsequent installments.
      By 2015, you'll have "Deluxe Duke Spiderman 3 Power Gold Director's Cut Nukem Forever".
      And you will like it.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Expensive Duplicates by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Funny

      By 2015, you'll have "Deluxe Duke Spiderman 3 Power Gold Director's Cut Nukem Forever".

      I think you misspelled "Blade Runner, The Final Cut"

  5. It's just a format refresh by davidwr · · Score: 3, Funny

    /. is refreshing their file-storage format to avoid obsolescence. This thread is in the new format. The one from two days ago is in the old format.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  6. Not a dupe! by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is just Slashdot's method for reducing storage costs!

  7. Another Idea by avandesande · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about they just shitcan everything and spare us another needless re-release?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  8. My God! We've done it all wrong! by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back to analog, everyone.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  9. Re:Not really by paulatz · · Score: 5, Funny

    The cost is really ridiculous, releasing the master on bittorrent would be so much cheaper.

    --
    this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
  10. Re:Not really by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why should we spend any money storing the Dukes of Hazzard movie for 100 years ...

    Because at the rate we're going in terms of quality (vs. quantity), the "Dukes of Hazzard" may represent a pinnacle of entertainment achievement. A scary thought, but look at what's on the tube today and run that out for a couple of more decades....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Re:Not really by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Coming up next "Ow! My Balls!" on the Violence Channel.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  12. Thank God by edwardpickman · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's a relief it's a dupe. For a second there I thought I'd zoned out and it was still two days until Christmas.