| |||||||
| Slashdot RSS RSS news feed directly from Slashdot. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) | |
| 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." Read more of this story at Slashdot. More... | ||
| | | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Slashdot // Afterlife Will Be Costly For Digital Films | Gizmo | Slashdot RSS | 0 | 23-December-07 04:50 PM |
| Bluesnews // Tomb Raider Anniversary Dated, and Movies, Movies, Movies | Gizmo | Blue's News RSS | 0 | 11-May-07 11:20 PM |
| Ars Technica // Amazon proceeding with plan to sell digital movies | Gizmo | Ars Technica RSS | 0 | 14-March-06 09:25 PM |
| Ars Technica // Amazon proceeding with plan to sell digital movies | Gizmo | Ars Technica RSS | 0 | 10-March-06 01:53 PM |
| Slashdot // Digital Enhancements or Expensive Distractions? | Gizmo | Slashdot RSS | 0 | 17-April-05 03:05 AM |