By Chris Lacinak
Director of Operations, Vidipax
Archiving, Preservation, Restoration, Conservation, Access, and Copy are words that are used very broadly and interchangeably throughout the audiovisual archiving and preservation field. These are words which historically have no defined practices that are tied to them. How does one know which they are performing and/or if they are performing to industry standard or specification? Without clear definition of the practical application of these words there is not much meaning to them. This is detrimental to the purpose and principle which they seek to define.
Even more important than defining the words is defining the purpose with which they are associated. The truth of the matter is that institutions charged with “preservation” often have varying and peripheral goals which may weave in and out of, and look like, various goals at different points in the process.
I conducted a small survey of professionals who archive, preserve and provide access to audiovisual materials. This group included experts in the reformatting process, administrators overseeing large collections and librarians who manage collections and outsource reformatting work. I asked two questions:
Responses to question number one included:
"Preservation is a process, strategy or approach taken to protect the original object, materials and content. Duplication is simply the act of creating a copy."
"For the purposes of preservation and professional usage, sound, (moving) images and associated metadata [content] should be transferred without loss or degradation."
“One can duplicate/copy media without concern for its long-term preservation. The copy may be of compromised quality (contain information/data loss) or be reproduced on a non-durable medium that deteriorates over time. Technological obsolescence may also render media unreadable over time if it cannot be properly migrated. Hence, preservation goes beyond duplication in its concern for the longevity of media, both in terms of its authenticity and readability over time.”
Responses to question number two included:
“concern about data loss/data authenticity; ability to migrate/read data over time; and durability of the physical stratum on which it's housed.”
“1) Knowledge 2) Resources 3) Ethical considerations.”
While the concepts of individuals regarding differences are closely aligned, the associated practices and materialization of the concepts are harder to define. Progressive awareness, over the past 20 years, regarding the need for reformatting audiovisual materials has directed rapid proliferation of reformatting projects. The rapid rate of reformatting increases the burden on the solidity and quality of the practices utilized to represent the goals for which they are intended. The consequences of ignoring this task are too great and damaging to our collective historical and artistic content. As a community, we must seek a common understanding to ensure that our reformatting actions are truly representative of our intended objectives, and that our actions are guided by clarity, not by ignorance. As part of this process, it is necessary to articulate the spectrum of preservation reformatting services and practices using a common terminology.
This document begins the conversation by presenting a “straw man” proposal consisting of a list of differences. The list includes both practical and philosophical contrasts in an effort to draw closer to a definable and material set of dissimilarities between concepts represented in the terms “Archiving”, “Preservation”, “Restoration”, “Conservation”, “Access” and “Copy”. At the very least, it is intended to serve as a common reference for the broad and diverse community charged with carrying forth various aligned causes, as we move forward in our efforts.
Rather than to try to define these words or argue semantics, this document seeks to define the practical application of the purpose behind the vocabulary in reference to the reformatting process.
The three purposes outlined are as follows:
Experience has shown that all three of these may be utilized throughout the duration of a reformatting project, sometimes in parallel and sometimes singularly.
When using words instead of purposes, you see that in the case of an informational reproduction, in retrospect, isn’t the institution that loses the original and is left with only this reproduction happy that they are left with a reproduction of the original? Even a low-level reproduction may serve as a form of preservation, in the case where an original is subsequently lost.
This is an argument that is carefully made from a vantage point of hindsight and is not intended to be utilized in project planning, but proves the point that even a project not intended for preservation can serve the purpose of preservation in the absence of anything greater. And the point is made only to propose that a further evaluation and clarification of terminology, concepts, intent and practices are needed to ensure that moving forward as a community is tied to progress. Forward movement without progress may very well be more harmful than no movement at all.
Also, the processes described below are meant to encompass the reformatting process specifically, and do not speak to the ongoing management, long term storage and maintenance of collections.
Click on the terms in the “Parameter” column for a more detailed breakdown of its meaning with respect to the type of reproduction – faithful, sufficient, or informational – to be created. Within each detail page there is a link back to this page.
| Parameter | Faithful | Sufficient | Informational |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic | Each tape received is closely visually examined by a technician to determine the proper method of treatment and/or reproduction. |
Each tape received is given an initial visual examination.
|
Non-existent as a pre-production activity. If performed, it is performed as a reaction to diagnosing only a few through failed reproductions.
|
| Preparation | Each tape is thoroughly physically examined and prepared for treatment and/or transfer.
|
Each tape is prepared for treatment and/or transfer.
|
Non-existent or Batch is treated on basis of diagnosing only a few through failed reproductions.
|
| Treatment | Performed under the principle of obtaining a faithful reproduction of the original recording. Stabilizing the physical medium as close to its original state as possible and countering degradation mechanisms in an aim to achieve a faithful reproduction. |
Only performed under a pass/fail criteria. Pass criteria is “transports without failure”, but may have unnecessary artifacts of varying extremes.
|
None performed
|
| Transfer | Primary focus is ensuring absolute preservation quality. All aspects are aimed at a faithful reproduction of the original.
|
Other factors driving primary focus away from ensuring absolute preservation quality |
Unmonitored multiple simultaneous transfers. Playback potentially performed faster than real-time. Potentially lesser quality equipment. Greater interval of time between cleanings of transport. No level setting.
|
| Transfer Documentation | An attempt to capture the reformatting process, source and destination media and content characteristics.
|
Meeting the metadata requirements.
|
Documenting Pass or Fail status of reproduction.
|
| Environment | Meet multi-media long term storage environment specifications. Secure.
|
Temperature and Humidity control. Secure.
|
No monitored temperature or humidity control.
Basic security.
|
| Equipment | Meets, or wherever possible, exceeds the technical parameters and technical limitations of the original recording device. Meets professional industry standards. |
Meets, or wherever possible, exceeds the bandwidth and technical limitations of the original recording device. Meets professional industry standards.
|
Reproduction ability may not meet technical specifications of original recording device. Signal path and transport may not be sound with regard to preservation.
|
| Signal Path | Wiring is high quality. Devices in the chain are chosen carefully and routed with signal integrity and preservation in mind. |
Wiring is high quality. Devices in the chain are chosen carefully and routed with signal integrity and preservation in mind.
|
Wiring and I/O may be of lesser quality. Devices in the signal path may be of lesser quality. Signal path is chosen to meet primary goal of expediency and convenience, and may result in unnecessary components or improper choice of components in the signal path.
|
| Staff | Thorough working knowledge of obsolete and new technologies and Library Sciences. Embedded in the field. Have core preservation sensibilities which are represented in actions and choices made in reformatting. Can speak and write intelligently on the topic. |
Strong technical knowledge and understanding of preservation values.
|
Basic technical knowledge.
|
| Quality Assurance | Implemented throughout entire process to ensure the highest level of quality assurance in all aspects of source media, reformatting, destination media and fulfillment |
Implemented as a process to avoid major quality issues.
|
Pass/Fail
|
| Metadata | Source media description, Industry standards and references used, Reproduction information, Destination information, Media and Content Condition report, Unique Identifier, pointers to relative objects. |
Title
Unique identifier
|
Title
|
Diagnostics provide the opportunity for information regarding
Container
Media
Back to the top.
The media is looked at as it’s being pulled out to place in/on the transport for reproduction.
This step involves confirming information gathered as part of the diagnostic process and expanding on this information.
Expert treatment minimizes artifacts while maximizing sonic quality. Any compromises made during the treatment phase can affect the integrity of the transferred content to the detriment of future preservation and the value of the asset.
Faithful reproduction is achieved by restoring the physical medium to its original condition as closely as possible. Although it may be expedient, shortcutting this labor-intensive phase results in the need for remedial post-production “clean up” that is detrimental to the content.
Treatment is a process which is post-diagnostic and pre-transfer. Expert diagnosis is critical in providing proper treatment. Media and data loss is the result of misdiagnosis and application of improper treatments.
Treatment activities may include cleaning, baking, lubrication, physical repair etc…
Treatment under this category is reactive, not proactive. It is a result of an initial failure in reproduction and/or transport. The potential gain is a gain in time and cost. The potential losses include added artifacts, media damage, content loss, added time, and playback machine damage.
No treatment. Insurance of quality image reproduction and transport success are sacrificed.
It is imperative that quality equipment is maintained and utilized from varying eras and varying iterations of technologies to support the diversity represented in audiovisual collections. The ability to reproduce is not always an indicator of successful reproduction. Matching corresponding technologies, devices and signals appropriately is the difference between poor and proper reproduction. The significance of the ability and knowledge of the technician utilizing these tools cannot be emphasized enough.
Diagnosis
Treatment
Features of reproduction and record devices
Test devices – Facility has
Peripheral and integrated system components
Features of reproduction and record devices
Test devices – Facility has
Peripheral and integrated system components
Features of reproduction and record devices
Peripheral and integrated system components
Has ability to produce tones, bars and sync
A staff comprised of individuals with expertise in a diverse set of disciplines is optimum. Naturally, this includes audiovisual reformatting and preservation. Overall criteria for a staff include experience, training and working knowledge of audio/video engineering (aka technician. Not an engineering degree), digital media/technology, electrical engineering, library sciences, material sciences and general arts and history.
Metadata capture, as used here, must be confined by a couple of considerations for proper perspective on the noted parameters.