|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-SLR chat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 01-04-2010 11:07 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
Okay...I'm pretty sure I'm going to go for a pair of external hard drives to store digital pictures. I have an iMac (5,1). I also want to ensure that as I change computers...that the hard drive of the computer isn't the thing I have to transfer from. I'd rather the computer's hard drive just deal with programs and such.
Any recommendations on the hard drives? Best brands, size, connection method?
This past summer, I wanted to get into some form of redundancy for network storage, and decided upon the Netgear ReadyNAS Duo and put two 1TB drives in it. I also considered a Drobo, but was concerned after reading many negative comments about reliability issues. The concept of it is very cool, though...
The one knock I have against the ReadyNAS is that it requires some tweaking to get the best performance out of it. Transfer speed is OK, but could be better, even on a Gigabit network. I think the box is limited by a CPU that is too slow. The file sharing permissions can be tricky and I've not taken the time to determine why I have problems with permissions in some cases. I'm sure it's a setting somewhere, but that would require reading the documentation... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, the redundancy factor came in handy, when one of the 1TB drives started increasing its reallocated sector counts, indicating that it was possibly failing. I received an E-Mail from the box saying that the number was increasing each time it did, and I bought a new 1TB drive to replace it, and then the box automatically sync'd the new drive as a mirror of the remaining good drive. I'll RMA the old one and then have a backup drive to use somewhere else.
I still make backups of the data, because I never want to be dependent upon one failure point. Even though it has two redundant drives, the ReadyNAS is still a single point of failure. The data on its drives (sadly) cannot be read by a standard computer.
Eventually, I want to get a SATA dock, and then take that extra 1TB drive and use it as an offsite backup drive that I can update periodically with a new snapshot.
I also have two Western Digital Passport drives that I use as backup drives for certain data sets as well. They are slower than molasses in January, so one can grow old waiting for them to do their thing.
Another thing you may want to consider from a backup standpoint is online backups, using something like JungleDisk, which uses Amazon's S3 storage cloud as a big online hard drive. I'm trying to find out more information about such options through RackSpace's Cloud Storage as well.
If you're not averse to some assembly, I've seen many good comments about using the Antec MX-1 USB/e-SATA 3.5-Inch Hard Drive Enclosure with a nice internal SATA hard drive. You'll get the longer warranty coverage that comes with the internal drive vs. external drives, and the result may be a better bang-for-the-buck solution. For about $155, you can have a 1.5TB external drive with both eSATA and USB connections. (I have no idea how a Mac factors into compatibility.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-04-2010 12:07 PM
No idea on the color space question.
As for external disks, we have had very good luck with the Maxtor external USB disks at my day job. We have several remote users (mostly salesmen) who work out of their homes and use these for backup purposes. I am not aware of any failures out of about fifteen disks. They have a good reputation and I believe that there are also firewire models available (which you might prefer for your Mac).
I would stay away from Western Digital and Lacie, as both seem to have spotty reputations. I have no opinion on other brands.
FAT32 is the most universal filesystem, but you really want something like zfs (which, sadly, the Mac does not support except for read-only use) in order to prevent losing data due to "bit-rot" (Google it).
The NAS box is an excellent idea, but you really need two of them in different locations, as the electronics in the box can fry, which could easily take out both disks (as could an accidental deletion, etc.). RAID is not backup; its purpose is to minimize downtime. The best part about the NAS box is that it allows easy access from multiple computers.
Note that disks like to be kept spinning, and a disk left on the shelf for any length of time cannot necessarily be expected to last for many years. Replace disks every year or two, at least. Before using them for storage, do some large copy operations to and from them for a couple of weeks to ensure that they will not fail quickly due to manufacturing issues. Keep at least two copies of everything (plus an original), and keep at least one of the copies off site (at your office or in a safe-deposit box).
If there are pictures that you truly care about and want to preserve for the long term, have them printed by a professional lab using a silver-halide process (or output the files to 35mm slides). Store the prints/slides in the dark, using acid-free materials. Modern color prints should last decades in dark storage at room temperature, and aren't subject to changing file formats, changing filesystems, data corruption, etc. B&W fiber-base prints are even better, but I don't know if these can be made from digital files.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-04-2010 12:41 PM
I think Firewire was bitten by the same bug that killed SCSI for mainstream consumer use: too complicated and expensive. Firewire isn't nearly as needlessly complicated as SCSI, but the varying 4-pin, 6-pin and 9-pin connectors and 400/800 speeds confused way too many people.
Apple did a good job promoting Firewire for the Mac platform. But Firewire has pretty much gone nowhere on the PC end, even though it is technically better than USB. Firewire has survived due to its use in video cameras. But so many newer models are equipped with hard discs or optical discs and don't really need Firewire to transfer the video.
I think eSATA stands a decent chance of gaining mainstream acceptance once enough computers are equipped with such ports. Many new computers don't have eSATA connections even though the standard can work in a USB/eSATA combo port.
quote: Scott Norwood
FAT32 is the most universal filesystem, but you really want something like zfs (which, sadly, the Mac does not support except for read-only use) in order to prevent losing data due to "bit-rot" (Google it).
How do you support something like ZFS disc formatting under a regular Windows-based system? What other kinds of devices would be able to read it? FAT32 has some serious limitations, such as the 4GB file size limit. But it can be read by Mac, Windows and other devices that can read external hard discs such as a Playstation 3 console.
quote: Scott Norwood
Note that disks like to be kept spinning, and a disk left on the shelf for any length of time cannot necessarily be expected to last for many years. Replace disks every year or two, at least. Before using them for storage, do some large copy operations to and from them for a couple of weeks to ensure that they will not fail quickly due to manufacturing issues. Keep at least two copies of everything (plus an original), and keep at least one of the copies off site (at your office or in a safe-deposit box).
With disc capacities steadily increasing in size it isn't too difficult to dub the data from an older, smaller external drive over to a new, much larger one. Prices are pretty cheap too.
For any important, work related material, it's good idea to keep one copy off site. What good will redundant backups on site be if they burn up in a building fire? What if someone breaks into the place and steals the stuff? You can replace a computer, but you can't replace the data saved on it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-04-2010 01:01 PM
Part of the recommendation to go FAT32 is NOT because it's particularly good or safe or fast. On the contrary. But it's VERY EASY to recover data from failed or slightly corrupted hard drives using off-the-shelf tools (not recommended unless the data is not that important). If it needs to be, you can always send the drive to a $pecialty data recovery shop and have a high chance of getting all/most of your data back if you are using common drives in a "common way" (i.e. no password protected, really weird format that is going to cost you much more $$$ to have recovered etc).
In short, FAT32 on common SATA drives is "universal", "cheap" and "bad", but good for easy recovery in case of problems, which is a plus for archival.
Stuff like RAID or specialty formats can be a dead end (or an expensive recovery proposition) in case of partial corruption/failure.
Write everything duplicated in two drives, do a surface scan on them once a year (they automatically re-write weak bits) and, if SMART doesn't report any foreseable problems, you should be good for another year. After the 6-7 year mark, if they last that long, move them to a new drive.
Unfortunately, with the Blu-ray BD-RW fiasco (too little, too late, too expensive, reliability-still-to-be-proven) and tape backup too expensive and obsolency-prone for personal use, this is the best way at the moment ...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-04-2010 01:49 PM
quote: Adam Martin
I wonder how much any given lens affects which color space looks best for any given photo?
Well, if the lenses you are comparing are good, it shouldn't make a difference, as the lenses should render the color the same as the original subject. If it doesn't, then the color space which includes more color variations in the hues that the lens "renders" is the one that would yield the most "perfect" image.
Having said that:
quote: Adam Martin
... looks best ...
What "looks best" (or sounds best) sometimes is not the "most perfect representation" of the reality. A photograph of the Gioconda is objectively a MUCH MUCH better representation of the Mona Lisa, but the painting by Leonardo, being FAR more imperfect than a photograph, may produce much more pleasing results to a wide range of people.
In that sense, the "best looking" or the "best sounding" is purely subjective and sometimes, paradoxically enough, it is not the most "perfect" system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic