VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 58 of 58
Thread
  1. Member DJRumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Zip compression is essentially the same thing that the Huffman codec uses, offering about a 2:1 compression ratio. The files would still be prohibitively large. Looks like MPEG-4 is the way preacher238 went. I think it was a good choice for what he/she was looking for.
    Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by DJRumpy
    Looks like MPEG-4 is the way preacher238 went. I think it was a good choice for what he/she was looking for.
    Different strokes and all that
    I guess I am too much of a perfectionist. Thanks for the info on the Huffman codec, I knew it was lossless, but didn't realize it would reduce the size that much.
    Guess I'll have to install and try. WinZip take a looooong time to crunch a file. Of course you can password protect it.
    Just what is this reality thing anyway?
    Quote Quote  
  3. Thanks again!

    Just installed and set Vdub for segmented AVI with 4000mb split and voila, archived video source.

    looks like I got about a 60% reduction in size.
    Just what is this reality thing anyway?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I have some XviD that run about 1 GB/hour that are virtually indistiguisable from the original DVD (on my TV at least). Once you get away from the inane 1 Movie/CDR issues, XviD (And DivX) really shine. Even WMV is impressive at these bitrates, although the true VBR video is a BIATCH to re-convert (don't reccomend it if your going to convert to something else). I have a number of 2 movies/DVDR that just shine. In fact, I usually run full 720x480 resolution because I can't use all the bitrate available at 640x480 in 2-pass. Of course you don't have to do 2-pass, but I encode overnight so it doesn't matter.

    As far as archiving captures, you can't go wrong with a high bitrate MPEG4 configuration.
    To Be, Or, Not To Be, That, Is The Gazorgan Plan
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    If you want to use DivX to store your video for future editing then you should try using the 1-pass quality-based encoding method with a quantizer of 1 or 2 (but no higher). DivX is easy to edit if you encode this way because the bitrate is constant and not variable. Using a variable bitrate with DivX means it will be VERY difficult to edit latter. Also using the setting I suggested will give you the highest quality DivX file you can create. It may be VERY large at that setting but still MUCH smaller than anything else can do and easier to edit than MPEG-2

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    A Yellow Submarine
    Search Comp PM
    Preacher238

    I almost cried out in anguish when I read you used wmv . You shouldn't use any proprietary or mpeg-4 based format (at the moment). Though they all would have great quality and probably last for a hundred years on cd or dvd media, you probably wouldn't be able to do anything with it when the time comes. Proprietary formats (wmv, rv, etc.) die with the company and usually don't get much support beyond that company or the company wants to promote their newest product (like microsoft has done with windows 3.1), and also there is more competition between these formats. Imagine if you archived all of your most important memories on beta tape and now you want to use it to maybe put on dvd. You probably could find someone to do it or equitment to do that with, but it's going to be more expesive and hard to find than if you had archived on VHS. mpeg-4 based codecs (divx, xvid, 3vix, ect.) might not be compatible later on when a good mpeg-4 standard is established and microsoft decides to stop suppporting the avi wrapper to try to make windows media more popular.

    I would suggest you use either dvd-video or DV. Because of their popularity now, they probably won't loose support when you want to finally want to use it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Gazorgan, Fulci Lives

    Thanks for the inputs. I am now doing CBR encodes. I forgot that editing VBR converted files can cause sync problems. Thanks for reminding me!
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member DJRumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Donny661, you should get out more. Microsoft no longer keeps WMV to itself. You can convert to/from it without issue. It's uses standard MPEG-4 compression, and can be converted with any number of freeware and pay for play tools. Once the user community accepts it, you have no worries. Now that XviD has come along with an open source codec for it, it will be around for years to come. As for Beta tapes, these are a digital file on a pc, highly portable, not stuck in a plastic box that doesn't fit into anything anymore


    preacher238, if you do multipass properly, you will have no sync issues. These problems are typically due to bad source, copies of copies of copies, and poor encoding methods. Done properly, your multipass will look better than your CBR encode. Give yourself a little credit Audio sync issues occur when the encoded file has corrupt frames (audio, or video). When these frames are dropped during a conversion to something else, the audio and video loose sync, since they are no longer the same length. Simple as that. No magic VBR trick causes it. Just bad frames. VBR is no more or less likely to have bad frames, than CBR (although there does appear to be an issue with VDub, and VBR MP3 audio). My guess would be hacked mp3 codecs, or improperly written ones. Using another format, like MP2, or AC3 should avoid that.
    Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, Ontario, Cana
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy
    We probably should have suggested WMV as well. It's another MPEG-4 codec, like DivX, and XviD. I don't know why it's not used as much though. Since MS has opened the doors, so to speak, on the codecs, I don't know why it's not utilized more.
    Unless they have improved it, the last time I looked, the quality was poorer than DivX.
    --
    Will
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy
    preacher238, if you do multipass properly, you will have no sync issues. These problems are typically due to bad source, copies of copies of copies, and poor encoding methods. Done properly, your multipass will look better than your CBR encode. Give yourself a little credit Audio sync issues occur when the encoded file has corrupt frames (audio, or video). When these frames are dropped during a conversion to something else, the audio and video loose sync, since they are no longer the same length. Simple as that. No magic VBR trick causes it. Just bad frames. VBR is no more or less likely to have bad frames, than CBR (although there does appear to be an issue with VDub, and VBR MP3 audio). My guess would be hacked mp3 codecs, or improperly written ones. Using another format, like MP2, or AC3 should avoid that.
    When I suggested to use CBR (by using 1-pass quality-based encoding) I was NOT suggesting that there are audio synch problems in regard to CBR vs VBR but it is my understanding that WHEN EDITING an existing video file it is easier to do so with CBR as VBR could cause EDITING problems such as loss of synch. As for MPEG-4 codecs my knowledge is with mostly DivX but if you do a 1-pass quality-based DivX 5.x encode with a very high quantizer (I suggest either 1 or 2) then the end result is AS GOOD AS DivX can get. Think of it this way ... with DVD mpeg-2 encoding VBR is better than CBR unless you do a 8000kbps CBR then you can't possibly do better with VBR since 8000kbps is about the highest rate you can use with an MPEG-2 encoder. So doing a 1-pass quality-based DivX 5.x encode (with a 1 quantizer) is AS GOOD AS you can get with DivX 5.x and it will be CBR which should be easy to edit when that is needed in the future. It is true that encoding with DivX at this rate will create a VERY large file but that file size should still be small enough that fitting at least one (or more) DV tapes per DVD is now possible.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member DJRumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Search Comp PM
    Multipass gives the encoder forknowledge of scene changes, and fades. With this, it can insert an I-Frame(s) to handle these transitions better, where CBR can miss these, if they are not properly detected as such, or not detected as a scene change/fade early enough to stop the quality from dropping. If it doesn't detect them properly, it will result in a drop in quality the farther you get from the last I-frame, until the fade/scene change is complete. Other than that, you are correct. A CBR DivX file, at 8000kbps would probably look fine no matter what, given that high bitrate, but you sacrifice the smaller possible sizes using a more wasteful method (CBR), where size was one of the original issues.
    Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The 'reason' that WMV is 'prrer' than DivX/Xvid is because you listened to M$. To M$, DVD quality is 96k audio and 600k video. We all know this is BS. Ignore any template in there and only do custom. If you use the same bitrates/resolution you do for DivX/XviD ( and RM if your adventorous ), then teh results are pretty similiar. Check out the codec comparison on Doom.org; proabably one of the best side-by-side comparisons of current codecs out there.

    As too VBR, you can't tell a VBR XviD from a CBR XviD without some tools or a good eye. The sync issues you talk about have nothing to do with the VBR video. I mispoke a bit when I said VBR and WMV. WMV does variable Framerate, which is what I was thinking but not what I said. Variable framerate video has some.....interesting challenges when converting. Although there are plenty of good tools to do it....it does lead to some unusual file sizes.
    To Be, Or, Not To Be, That, Is The Gazorgan Plan
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member flaninacupboard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Northants, England
    Search Comp PM
    Divx/Xvid are variable bitrate anyway. given gaps between keyframes can be massive (i don;t know if there is a limitation, but i often see as high as 250 frames) then obviously the second in which your keyframe exists has a much higher bitrate than the seconds whicg contain only delta frames. look at the frame sizes in Vdub for yourself!
    Quote Quote  
  14. Can anyone recommend a program that chunks AVI files into smaller files? I have some VHS captures that are about 20GB. I want to break them down into 4.3GB files so that I can store the raw AVIs on DVD. I tried Virtualdub but it's limited to about 2GB. That would be acceptable but I did some testing where I chunked a file into two pieces and then used virtualdub to combine them back together. I was disappointed to find that there was a "hiccup" where the files were joined, which was unacceptable. I tried Winrar, but gave up after it worked for about 20 minutes and was still at about 2% (with the remaining time staying constant). Any good solutions appreciated. I heard someone mention AVI_IO. Anyone know if it's safe? Where's a good place to get it and does it work?
    Thanks,
    Dean
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hamaholic
    Can anyone recommend a program that chunks AVI files into smaller files? I have some VHS captures that are about 20GB. I want to break them down into 4.3GB files so that I can store the raw AVIs on DVD. I tried Virtualdub but it's limited to about 2GB. That would be acceptable but I did some testing where I chunked a file into two pieces and then used virtualdub to combine them back together. I was disappointed to find that there was a "hiccup" where the files were joined, which was unacceptable. I tried Winrar, but gave up after it worked for about 20 minutes and was still at about 2% (with the remaining time staying constant). Any good solutions appreciated. I heard someone mention AVI_IO. Anyone know if it's safe? Where's a good place to get it and does it work?
    Thanks,
    Dean
    WinRAR will work as long as you do ARCHIVE only. Do not attempt to use compression. To be safe I would make the file break at around 3.9 GB since some DVD-R/+R discs have problems when you fill them up too much and since this is to be an archive ... well ... you want to do what you can to make sure it is readable in the future.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  16. Try Master Splitter - I use it all the time to break up files into 700Mb chunks for archiving onto CD-ROMs. It's very fast and does error checks too.
    Quote Quote  
  17. However you decided to store the files on the DVDROM, I'd suggest running an SFV program on the files, and burning that on the DVDROM as well. When it comes time to copy the files back to your HD, you can validate them and alleviate any worries about 'flipped bits'.

    -Jase
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by AmuroRay
    However you decided to store the files on the DVDROM, I'd suggest running an SFV program on the files, and burning that on the DVDROM as well. When it comes time to copy the files back to your HD, you can validate them and alleviate any worries about 'flipped bits'.

    -Jase
    Hi, Jase!
    Pardon my ignorance -- what does SFV stand for? I'm sure it's obvious to most but I'm drawing a blank.
    Regards,
    Dean
    Quote Quote  
  19. Originally Posted by FulciLives
    WinRAR will work as long as you do ARCHIVE only. Do not attempt to use compression. To be safe I would make the file break at around 3.9 GB since some DVD-R/+R discs have problems when you fill them up too much and since this is to be an archive ... well ... you want to do what you can to make sure it is readable in the future.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    Thanks, John!
    Have you tried making self-extracting RARs with WinRAR? I am concerned that if I archive the DV AVIs and WinRAR isn't around (however unlikely) when I go to extract them, I'm hosed. I tried testing that but it was one of those 20 min experiments that didn't get close to finishing. Just wondered if you (or anyone else) has verified that this works OK.
    Thanks,
    Dean
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by hamaholic
    Hi, Jase!
    Pardon my ignorance -- what does SFV stand for? I'm sure it's obvious to most but I'm drawing a blank.
    Regards,
    Dean
    SFV stands for Simple File Verification. It is a method of creating a sort of digital signature of a file based upon the bytes contained in a file and their positions relative to one another (CRC32). SFV CRCs are represented as hex values 8 characters long, e.g. '0FA3472B'. By creating SFV files for your data before you burn (and burning them on the disc with the data) you can then check the signature of the file whenever you recopy it to your hard drive (or you can validate your burn as well). A good and easy(although slow) program to use is "Brad Smith's Easy SFV Creator", available here.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas USA
    Search Comp PM
    MPEG2 I-frame only.
    Divx and XVID is still crap compared to MPEG2.
    I'm not online anymore. Ask BALDRICK, LORDSMURF or SATSTORM for help. PM's are ignored.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member FulciLives's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA in the USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hamaholic
    Originally Posted by FulciLives
    WinRAR will work as long as you do ARCHIVE only. Do not attempt to use compression. To be safe I would make the file break at around 3.9 GB since some DVD-R/+R discs have problems when you fill them up too much and since this is to be an archive ... well ... you want to do what you can to make sure it is readable in the future.

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman
    Thanks, John!
    Have you tried making self-extracting RARs with WinRAR? I am concerned that if I archive the DV AVIs and WinRAR isn't around (however unlikely) when I go to extract them, I'm hosed. I tried testing that but it was one of those 20 min experiments that didn't get close to finishing. Just wondered if you (or anyone else) has verified that this works OK.
    Thanks,
    Dean
    Yes. I have made self-extracting backups with WinRAR. The first file has an *.exe extention and the rest of the files are something like *.ra1 *.ra2 or something like that.

    The ONLY draw back is you gotta have a lot of HDD space. You need to copy ALL of the files (from your multiple disc backups) to the same HDD then run the first file (the one that ends in *.exe). This will then "extract" the LARGE single file just as it was before you "broke it up" with WinRAR.

    Works for me

    - John "FulciLives" Coleman

    P.S.
    I did this many times to get a DVD IMAGE file (around 4.3GB) onto several CD-R discs. This was before I had a DVD burner and I wanted to take my IMAGE file to a friend's computer (he had a DVD burner) so I could burn my image. So I broke the 4.3GB IMAGE file up into 698MB blocks using the ARCHIVE feature (not compression) in WinRAR and made it self-extracting. I never tried to back up a large file across several DVD-R discs but it is really the same process UNLESS WinRAR has a problem with the otherwise larger files but I don't see why it would.

    As a test try RIPPING a dual layer DVD9 disc. Rip it as an IMAGE file so you have one large file that will be bigger than one DVD. Then use WinRAR to break it up in two chucks of 4.3GB each (or smaller) then back it up to 2 DVD-RW or DVD+RW discs (this way you aren't wasting anything). Then copy the two files back to your HDD and see if WinRAR can put it back together again. Test the IMAGE file by mounting it with DAEMON TOOLS and play it back in your software DVD player.

    Unless WinRAR has a "bug" that keeps it from "dealing" with such large files (which would seem very "odd" since it is an archive tool) then I see no reason why it wouldn't work splitting up ANY large file across many DVD discs.

    *** EDIT ***
    As I said before I would keep your chunk size down to somewhere around 3.9GB to 4.0GB since some DVD recordable discs seem to get "flaky" if you fill them up too much to the max.
    "The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
    EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member DJRumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Search Comp PM
    MPEG2 I-frame only.
    Divx and XVID is still crap compared to MPEG2.
    Making an I-Frame only mpeg is somewhat pointless. Your removing all of the strengths of MPEG by doing so, and increasing your bitrate requirements to produce an all I-Frame stream. As for DivX and XviD, I would hardly consider full 720x480 video at VCD bitrates 'crap'. Perhaps your output has been crap due to inexperience. Properly encoded, MPEG-2 cannot match MPEG-4 bitrate for bitrate.
    Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Huntsville, Ontario, Cana
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy
    Properly encoded, MPEG-2 cannot match MPEG-4 bitrate for bitrate.
    If bitrate were the only crieria I would agree. But there is also quality to consider. I have yet to see an MPEG4 that can match a DVD compliant MPEG2.

    I burn to DVD, so size is not an issue, quality is. Plus MPEG4 will not play on either of my 2 stand alone DVD players. I for one do not want to watch a 2 hour movie on a 17" monitor while sitting on my computer chair. I would rather relax in the recliner and watch it on my 32" TV.
    --
    Will
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member DJRumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Search Comp PM
    MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 use the same methods for compressing video. MPEG-4 is simply better at it. If you haven't seen a good quality encode, then you haven't been looking in the right places.

    MPEG-2 only approaches a 1:1 copy at around 9.8 Mbps. MPEG-4 can do the same at far lower bitrates.
    Impossible to see the future is. The Dark Side clouds everything...
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Satellite Provider
    Search Comp PM
    I archived 83.5Gb of standard definition (720x576) PAL DV tape footage captured to hard drive, on to 20+ DVD-R/DVD+Rs.
    I then archived the footage to two dual layer Blu-ray recordables, BD-R DLs, 50Gb capacity each.

    http://superuser.com/questions/92139/better-approach-to-archiving-large-amounts-of-ori...e-using-optica


    I've also put the footage onto my Lacie NAS 2BigDisk, 2Tb (2x1Tb disks), configured as 1Tb RAID1, "Lacie Safe100" mode.
    I've also looked on this respected videohelp.com forum and here are some good answers:



    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/301782-Archive-MiniDV?p=1957367
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/117802-How-can-I-burn-a-avi-to-DVDR
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/270157-Archiving-Video
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/304813-Best-DV-archiving-methode

    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Search PM
    I am trying to determine the best way to archive 8mm and Hi8 video. Since these tapes degrade over time, I have been running them through an imac and putting them on 500 gig Lacie external hard drive. It seems that hard drives dont last forever, so after period of time I need to back up the external hard drives to new external hard drives. I have 5 questions:

    1) Do hard drives degrade over time similar to the was that Hi8 tapes do?

    2) Each time I copy one hard drive to another, is some quality of the video/data lost?

    3) with what frequency should I be backing up the hard drives-- every 5 years?

    4) Is an enterprise class hard drive recommended for this. My cursory research suggests that these are muh higher quality drives than for example a Lacie external hard drive.

    5) which external hard drive(and manufacturer) would you recommend. I need have about 2TB of data

    6) are SSD drives optimal or are these really not a proven technology yet
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Satellite Provider
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    I am trying to determine the best way to archive 8mm and Hi8 video. Since these tapes degrade over time, I have been running them through an imac and putting them on 500 gig Lacie external hard drive. It seems that hard drives dont last forever, so after period of time I need to back up the external hard drives to new external hard drives. I have 5 questions:
    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    1) Do hard drives degrade over time similar to the was that Hi8 tapes do?
    Yes harddrives do degrade over time but in a very different way from Hi8 as they are 2 different types of storage media. The main Hard drive degradation to consider is the wear on the rotating disks that hold the data, these wear out over time whereby the material becomes less effective due to wear from use - the magnetic material on the disk may become gradually less efficient at storing data for example. However hard drives can detect (and even predict) failures and move an exact copy of the data to another part of the disk to avoid loss, automatically. But once the drive gets in a very bad condition, there will eventually be no alternative places to move the data to, particuarly if most of the disk is already used up to store the data. Other factors that can affect the data stored on the hard drive are how the programs running store the data: operating systems and applications can make errors in storing data, also if the machine is powered off without following a shutdown sequence, some data may be lost if the software had not finished writing it to the disk. Power spikes, other electronic interference can also affect the drive.
    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    2) Each time I copy one hard drive to another, is some quality of the video/data lost?
    No. Unlike Hi8, which is analogue, a hard disk is a digital storage system. This means that the smallest unit data, called a 'bit', is represented by a 0 or 1 value, represented 2 different states of the storage medium which is must more simpler to copy without loss of quality. On a digital medium such as your hard disk, your video recordings are made up of millions and millions bits. Any noise, interference or variation in quality of the storage physical medium is much less likely to affect the quality of the copy compared with analogue. With digital, a 0 or 1 can be copied, and if it encounters interference, making it the 0 become a 0.001 and the 1 become 0.999, the digital system can still recognise these as a 0 or 1. So in short, every copy you make on a hard drive, or to another computer will most certainly be identical to the original. Contrast this with analogue whereby the smallest unit of data represents your video as many more different values and any noise that finds its way onto your hi8 recordings will be mixed in with this and hard to remove.


    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    3) with what frequency should I be backing up the hard drives-- every 5 years?
    I think your question is actually 2 questions 1) about how long a hard drive lasts and 2) how often you should backup. To answer 1) Hard drive technology is very mature however they are fragile physically and the data can also be damaged by exposure to magnetic fields such as being very close to audio equipment (speaker magnets). So a hard drive can last over 5 years but you should not rely upon this and only have your data on one hard drive. 2) I would recommend keeping at least 2 backup copies of your original data. These copies should be on separate hard drives on separate systems, if possible one of them should be on another site in the event of theft, fire or other distaster on your premises. You may also want to use optical media (DVD writable, Blu-ray) to backup your data and a cloud service such as Google Drive, Microsoft Skydrive, Dropbox, Box.com or another service - however these will incur a regular cost for larger amounts of data to backup and will take time to transfer data over the internet to them, check your bandwidth allowance with your ISP. OVerall, the more backup options you have, more regularly you do it, on diverse media storage formats, on different locations, the less likely you are to lose your data but with more options comes the consideration of cost and having an effective administration system to keep track of them all.

    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    4) Is an enterprise class hard drive recommended for this. My cursory research suggests that these are muh higher quality drives than for example a Lacie external hard drive.
    On its own an enterprise drive will have the same risks of loss of data that I described in 3) So you are best advised to follow the answer given there. Another point is that Enterprise drives are tuned for the higher 24/7 demands of business. In these cases, such drives are organised in arrays, called RAID for example whereby several copies of the same data are automatically kept on several drives to reduce risk of loss of data in the event one of the drives fails, because the other drives can take over provide the data.

    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    5) which external hard drive(and manufacturer) would you recommend. I need have about 2TB of data
    I don't have a strong opinion on brand of harddrive. I think they are all reasonably good and there are are just a few major manufacturers now of the actual drives due to consolidation of the industry. There are many brands particularly for external drives but they will contain one of the few original makers. I have had failures on most the brands, as described in 2) they can go wrong, so the answer is in 3) above avoid losing data. When you read customer/user reviews in forums etc or on shopping pages you will always tend to find those with a bad thing to say about every brand as people tend to say something when there is a problem - they are motivated by the need for help, rather than people who will write good things - as they no incentive to do so because they are happy.


    Originally Posted by dingo41 View Post
    6) are SSD drives optimal or are these really not a proven technology yet
    SSDs are becoming a proven technology but some brands have had bad press in the past about sudden failure (and therefore consequential loss of data). The advantage of SSDs are faster access times which means that your computer will start quicker from switching on as it is able to load Windows (or Mac Os, or Linus or whatever) faster than many traditional harddrives and also start apps quicker once booted as well as faster rendering times that are disk intensive. The hard disk is the slowest part of the computer and as with any system (chemical reaction, business process, computer system), making the slowest part of a system faster will have the biggest influence over the overall speed. Also, because SSDs are a chip technology, they have no moving parts and so are more robust to physical impact, so more ideal for laptops where by bumps and knocks can happen - during travel or simple if the laptop falls onto a hard surface. But once again, my answer to your question 3) also applied to SSDs: don't keep your valuable in one place, make copies onto separate systems.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!