Select

How Necessary Is Rehousing Archival Audio & Video?

When I was first out of school I interviewed for a project archivist position with a long-standing acting school in New York. The interview was with the director of the school who, to understate it, was somewhat dramatic, and the whole thing felt more like an audition than an interview. It even started off with what seemed like an improv exercise. As soon as I sat down the director said, “Okay. You’re given a box of archival materials. It’s a mix of papers, tapes, maybe some books or photos. What do you do? Go.”

Being a freshly minted archivist I of course was cautious, describing how I would assess the contents and their arrangement in the box, and then deliberately and carefully remove them to begin identification and plan my approach.

At some point the director began waving her arm in the air, saying, “Stop stop stop. Why does everyone always say the same thing?!”

**************************

I didn’t get that job — very likely because I asked for a living wage — but I have frequently thought of that interview experience, wondering why that response would bother a non-archivist so much, but also wondering exactly why I said the same thing as everyone else.

The simple answer there is, of course, the result of my training in the standards and traditions of archiving. Not having a lot of practical experience at that point I hadn’t yet been confronted with the real world application of those standards beyond the idealism encased in ivied walls.

To be sure, standards and methodologies are necessary as reference points, but as with cooking, true skill comes in understanding not just the What, but the Why and How. It is the difference between being able to follow a recipe and being able to cook.

One area I’ve been looking into the Why is rehousing. I know MPLP-style processing has tried to limit this for paper materials from a workflow point of view, but the love for non-acidic and polypropelene enclosures is hard to break. Especially if they’re very small or custom made.

I understand the need for rehousing at the item/folder/box level for paper, photographs, and film materials. First, it helps store things on limited shelf space to have some regularity in their form and arrangement and can also provide some form of intellectual arrangement to aid discovery. Second, for things that last a long time, storing them in a way that promotes that extended longevity makes sense. If you can make a film last 100 years instead of 30, why not invest in that?

But audiotape and videotape present a number of issues here. Primary is the basic availability of materials. Archival (inert polypropylene) containers really only exist for VHS, audiocassettes, and 1/4″ open reel — essentially the widely adopted commercial formats that have existed in large quantities in lending libraries (beyond just archives). Without that use case, those containers would have likely never been produced in large quantities. The lack of options means that the most at risk tape formats (and those that will be at high risk in 10-20 years) do not have an option for rehousing for long term storage.

But is this actually a problem?

Planning for long term storage of 2″ Quad or 3/4″ U-matic may not be that worthwhile of an exercise. Many tape formats are at the point condition- or obsolesence-wise where near term reformatting is really the only option for preservation. A 1/2″ open reel videotape will not appreciatively gain from being placed in a new container.

This begs the question, then, of what the benefit is of rehousing audiocassettes, VHS, and 1/4″ open reel tape. Reformatting is an unavoidable activity. Is anything gained in the cost expenditure of equipment –> rehousing –> processing –> reformatting versus just reformatting? Physically speaking, does 3 years in polypropylene significantly counteract 45 years in acidic cardboard or vinyl? Is it worth it to spend $10,000 on plastic case rather than on reformatting or on playback equipment? Any practical experience or opinions on this issue out there?

— Joshua Ranger

Is Hoarding An Archival Activity?

When I first moved to New York I lived in the Brooklyn Chinatown section of Sunset Park, an approximately 20 block long area sandwiched between a largely Hispanic section of the neighborhood and the primarily Hasidic Boro Park neighborhood. On my block was a small Indian bodega (which I’m guessing is a term that has transcended its original classification) that carried a large selection of Bollywood films on VHS. I never saw anyone shopping in this store but assumed it must be serving some nearby Indian population, given the broad ethnic mix of the area and the stacks of videocassettes with Xeroxed cover art taped to the plastic housing — a common enough site not just in New York but anywhere I’ve lived with an immigrant population large enough to support their own “specialty” grocery store. (Well, I assumed that was the case…either that or it was just another front for some undocumented, cash only business. Again a seemingly common site in New York).

A recent article in the New York Times reported on this continuing phenomenon of VHS rentals available in immigrant heavy neighborhoods (“For Movies, Some Immigrants Still Choose to Hit Rewind”). Of course the article assumes this is something unique to New York because, well, New York, but, regardless, I still found a lot to think about packed into this “Hey look, people do things” story.

In a way, the anecdotes made me feel a smidge less vehemently against the “We are all archivists” creed. Not because I would call some of the people in the article archivists, but because I recognize common struggles and discussions about using and managing media collections. We have the characters enamored with the ritual and aesthetic of the format and technology (Yes, for VHS. There are people who love video more than film.) (“‘They’re not living things, but it’s alive,’ he added, his eyes brightening. ‘There’s something there. You put it in the VCR, and it comes alive.'” … “Anyway, she added, using videocassettes ‘feels like an old Korean tradition kind of thing.'”). We have the characters storing tapes every which way but loose as they struggle with inadequate space and facilities (“Mr. Matsoukas is now saddled with about 40,000 videocassettes, a vast majority of which are stuffed into the boxes and garbage bags that clog the shop’s basement. Others line bookshelves, or are stacked in blocks on the floor and the counter.”). We have the characters unwilling or unable to deaccession (a kinder way of saying hoarding) because there might very well be something unique among the ruins (“Mr. Matsoukas offered a practical reason for his devotion: not all tapes have been transferred to more modern formats, and among them may be a rarity, if not the only surviving copy.”) or some person somewhere some day may be looking for something (“Mr. Sangotte and other shop owners said that as long as there remained a possibility of eking out some revenue from their cassette stock, they would suffer the clutter.”). This is coupled with the dream of monetization, that somehow there is the chance of realizing direct monetary exchange for materials that cannot currently be sold 10 for $1, or less (“The last time he tried to donate some to the public library, he said, he was rebuffed.”).

One day last summer I was walking in my neighborhood and passed a man setting up a table full of VHS tapes. He was telling a bystander, “I’m going to stay out here all day and sell every on of these.” I imagine he’s still there.

Common characters. Common struggles. Common discussions. But here’s where the Archivist typically (or typically should) differ — by taking action. Items might be unique? Take an inventory and do some research to find out for sure. Can’t deaccession? Develop a policy and enact it. Have your tapes stored in garbage bags? Take them out and put ’em on a shelf. Want to monetize your collection? Well…Quit archiving and purchase or license some other kinds of materials out right.

Sorry. No easy answers for any of this. There no getting around the fact that resources are needed to take action, but, in truth, it’s our training and our duty. It’s what we should strive towards doing. I reckon moaning to the New York Times is one form of advocacy, but I would prefer the human interest on me to be about an archiving success, not my problems. Well, about an archival success or about how many marshmallows I can stuff in my mouth and still say “Chubby Bunny”. I’d take that as well.

— Joshua Ranger

It’s Time To Start Considering Digital Materials As Legacy Formats

I know we all were very excited about the 50th anniversary of the first use of analog broadcast videotape six years ago…If by ‘we’ I mean myself, 7 friends, and that guy, Roy, whom no one has seen in person for the past 23 years.

Though still recovering from the celebratory parties we had back then, I’ve begun to take supplements to steel myself for this year’s anniversary of digital tape. Problem is, I haven’t yet received any party invitations. I know the USPS is not doing so hot right now, but, given the format in question, I would expect at least one of my co-revelers would be using e-vite or something. (Oh. Sorry USPS!) But, having scoured my spam folders, unless the party is in Nigeria this year, I’m still out of luck.

This situation made me think perhaps this Base 10 year-of-import isn’t such a big deal because the Jubilee party for data tape was 10 years ago.

Wait.

That means analog videotape turned 50 in 2006. Digital tape turned 50 in 2002.

Wait.

No.

This is true.

As pointed out in a recent column in the online Forbes magazine (thanks to Ryan Donaldson at the Durst Organization for the link) digital data tape is 60-years old this year. Not as old as audiotape, but older than video. And except for that time Malcolm appeared in Amazing Spider-Man, when has Forbes tried to pull a fast one on us? (For the sake of argument we’ll just ignore Steve for right now. As the American voting public did. Hey-O!)

Of course, this was just data tape, not digital audio or digital video formats. But still, the fact stands, digital technology has been with us a long time — longer than many of the analog formats that are currently causing us so many headaches right now.

This underscores a point I have been struggling with putting words to — namely, that the words we put to discussing digital preservation are inadequate or insufficiently precise to cover the multitude of technologies and media types involved. Digital is not a format like a book or a 16mm film or a Cartravision cartridge. It is a method of storage that can be utilized across various media and formats, including incredibly intangible ones such as holographic storage or incredibly physical ones such as punch cards. Almost analogous to analog, one might say.

In this way, I, Joshua M Ranger, feel that the arguments over analog v. digital are, ultimately, academic. Ask me my aesthetic opinion, and you may or may not get a different answer, but that opinion is neither here nor there nor in the past nor in the future. To argue for or against the use of digital formats on aesthetic grounds, however, does nothing to help preserve them. Digital has existed and will continue to exist — at least until on or about December 2012. To preserve digital materials is not a rejection of the analog, but to reject addressing the preservation and long term management of digital files as they have existed and currently exist is to forego 60 years of our shared history. A sliver off a micron of human history to be sure, but still .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000314 larger a portion than analog video.

— Joshua Ranger

Are Archives Not Deaccessioning Enough?

At the Spring MARAC meeting during a panel on digital preservation, a presenter showed a slide of a Post-it note adhered to an inaccessible disc that said “Save in case of miracle.” In archiving we are constantly faced with the decision (or non-decision) point of saving a decayed/corrupted original just in case some future means of reformatting is invented that will allow us to recover it versus the deaccessioning of assets that are of questionable research/resource value. These decisions are complicated by the collector’s mentality many of us possess as well as the creative, problematizing minds we must develop for archival work… I mean, just what if the percentage of a VHS tape used for recording versus its recordable length becomes an important research topic in 40 years?

There were a number of panels that touched on the issue of deaccessioning as part of archival processing, such as the seemingly easy decision to jettison eight cartons of college catalogs that were neither rare nor had any annotations or extra meaning to the collection beyond the fact that they were in the subject’s office (though a researcher did try to stop the deaccession). But there was also the reminder that the urge to save everything justincase (or because that’s what people non-conversant in the struggles over space and resources an institution faces expect) is a powerful force in our decision (or non-decision) making.

This issue comes up for me a lot because while the Save Every Frame ideology sounds nice it is incredibly impractical for the vast majority of archives out there (and not necessarily desirable, either, when truly weighing the curatorial value of all accessioned assets), but also because in my work I must necessarily approach recommendations from a technical aspect sprinkled with what I can glean in regards to institutional values and character. This is the collaborative nature of working with an organization where we combine our areas of expertise to hopefully arrive at an acceptable and realistic prioritization/preservation plan. I factor in valuation as much as I can, but my knowledge is not as deep as those within the institution.

As an outsider in this way (as opposed to the myriad other ways) there are many asset types I wonder about as far as their value to the institution or the appetite for maintaining them. Trims and outtakes from film projects are an obvious area I seen some discussions on, but what I run into more often are what I call courtesy copies — those typically 1-5 minute stories created by an outside news/information program about an institution or event, copies of which are regularly provided to the news story subject.

These may document an event or topic that the institution has not itself documented and may be of value as such. By the same token, they may be low quality versions provided on now obsolete or problematic formats, and very often on cassettes that have a much greater capacity than actual program running time (oh the 1/120th full VHS tapes I’ve seen…).

Though certainly of value to institutional history, these tapes present a great burden to physical storage resources and a great challenge to preservation decisions. Does a poor VHS dub warrant an uncompressed video preservation master, or may a lossy, more manageable format make more sense for digitization? Should the originals be saved, should one rely on the original creator to maintain a high-res version for the future, or should one take on the anticipated role of the de facto archive…Just in case? And, really, what value does a receiving institution place on these copies beyond “Well, we have it, so we should save it,” especially if burdened with formats for which they do not have playback capabilities or content of questionable copyright status? I would guess that news organizations are looking for cheaper and cheaper ways to send courtesy copies, including low-res digital files they can simply email to avoid the cost of media and postage. Where does a low bit-rate MPEG4 fit into a full-on preservation plan?

To be clear, I’m not claiming these types of materials are worthless, but asking colleagues who hold such assets how they view the value, use, and challenges of them. And not just on the content level, but on the practical level of storing, managing, and potentially reformatting (and then storing and managing those copies) those boxes and boxes and boxes of audiocassettes, DATs, VHS, U-matic, DVCam, etc., etc., etc.

***********************************************************************

In the end, these questions matter, are difficult, and point to the many resource burdens of preservation. However, the answers to such questions point to the institutional benefits of preservation and reformatting. No, it isn’t a reliable plan to reformat for licensing and monetization. And, yes, it does cost a good chunk of change to reformat for content that is potentially low quality and not currently unique. But the value to an institution’s character, to be able to say This is our history and This happened here and the world cared enough to document it —— to be able to show employees This is what you’re supporting through all of your contributions to the institution —— to be able to show patrons This is the tradition you’re becoming a part of —— these concepts are evaluated beyond monetary worth. They speak to the value of the mission and the continued support of the organization, and they speak to the value of archives in housing and providing access to that incalculable benefit.

— Joshua Ranger

The Need To Change Our Concept Of Format From A Singular To A Complex Entity

“Words give a sentence its luster, and choosing them deserves intense attention.”
— Constance Hale, “Desperately Seeking Synonyms”

I’ve written before about words I’ve given up on, and though I’m not prepared to move on from my particular bête noire, I do have a new bugaboo after having read the article “Archiving, Preservation Move into 21st Century” in TV Technology. Don’t get me wrong — I’m very happy to see the topics of archiving and preservation addressed in broader forums and within more production and distribution centric venues. And the article in question does hit on many of the major issues facing digital preservation, such as longevity, storage, and interoperability.

Seeing as how I cannot seem to write a paragraph without saying “however”, however, I have to take up issue with the use of the broad term format and the elision of its multiple meanings. In the article, formats morph from original legacy media (16mm, BetaCam, etc.) to file formats/wrappers (though no mention of the complexity of codecs is made) to storage media (LTO, etc.) and on to storage methods that involve media but are not media (i.e., The Cloud).

Yes, these are all formats, but they are not the same type of format and, thus, require different methods of management/preservation and, especially with digital assets, are often found in combinations that create a complex system of storage and asset formats. This is in part why I have written that digital preservation is not a format problem but a communication and a resource problem.

Economics and human nature dictate that there will never be a single file format and file storage solution, so the job of the archivist will necessarily be the selection and management of the various options available. This is also why I have written about the need for archivists to better collaborate with IT departments and other stakeholders in order to find or develop solutions that address the functional requirements of the organization.

This is something that the TV Technology article glosses over — especially when considering storage and use of the cloud. From my experience, vendors offering storage and cloud access are still pricing and designing towards text and photos. Costs are calculated at the per GB level. When an hour of moving image content can range from 100GB to 1TB, this kind of pricing structure and technical infrastructure cannot hold — nor can it be afforded by many institutions.

In the end we have to acknowledge that, just like preservation of physical items, the preservation of digital materials involves a range of informed decision points that may not end in the same conclusions as other organizations. Digital is no more of a format than analog is — there are formats that fit within those categories, but to speak about them as singular entities with singular solutions is an 18th century rather than a 21st century mindset.

— Joshua Ranger

AVPreserve Blogging With Post Magazine

AVPS has been invited to contribute a monthly blog to the Post Magazine website. For 25 years Post has been one of the premiere journals covering issues that interest and affect people in the post-production field, including film, television, videogames, animation, audio, the Web, and more. Based on our experience with production, engineering, and range of commercial and academic archives, AVPS will focus on the archiving and preservation topics that can impact the workflows and long-term usability of audiovisual content beginning at the point of production and following through to distribution and archiving.

The first post is available online now: “Why Is A/V preservation such a nuisance… and necessity” by AVPS Senior Consultant, Joshua Ranger. This is an exciting opportunity to expand the preservation conversation between creators and caretakers. We’re grateful to Post and look forward to working together.

Post Positions: Archive Now For Later

A guest opinion piece by Chris Lacinak featured in Post Magazine on the importance of using preservation oriented workflows in a production environment. Establishing reliable preservation and archival practice makes sound business sense, promoting efficient and cost-effective workflows, providing find-ability and the wherewithal to support premium repurposing projects.

• POST MAGAZINE ARTICLE (Link to Website)

METRO Selects DHP Collection Assessment Grantees

Congratulations to Brooklyn Museum Libraries and Archives, Lesbian HERStory Archives, and the White Plains Public Library on their selection by the Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO) to each receive one of the three collection assessment grants being funded by the New York State Documentary Heritage Program.

Is The Product Of Less Process Sufficient For Audiovisual Collections?

Greene and Meissner’s “More Product, Less Process” is both an inspiration to me and one of the banes of my existence. As I’m sure many archivists feel, it’s refreshing to hear an approach to collection processing that is pragmatic and takes into account the realities of the time and personnel required for the work versus what is actually available. In my work I’m often dealing with developing recommendations around workflows, budgets, and other preservation planning needs that need to be reasonable to the individual institution and do-able within the nearer term. Having G&M as a supporting reference point is highly valuable. (That said, by the same token I’m sure that many budget-makers are equally happy to hear that their staff should be doing more with less, as it were.)

Issues of interpretation aside, the glaring problem I have with G&M is that their original article makes no mention of processing film, video, audio, and other complex media objects outside of a few questions in their originating survey. To me, this is a major hole in the logic of their otherwise sound proposition. If they had said, “Our analysis only applies to paper and (generally) photographic collections,” that would be one thing. But for it to be considered standard procedure for “late 20th century” collections is something by which I cannot abide.

To describe paper collections at the folder, box or other higher level and let researchers dig through them to discover items themselves is sensible for the most part. But does that strategy still work when the researcher comes across audiovisual materials that are inaccessible, unlabeled, in too poor of shape to play back, or otherwise facing issues that would prevent a researcher from determining anything about an object outside of apparent format or condition characteristics?

Film can be more fungible in this aspect because of its visual nature – assuming one has space and equipment to wind through or view without projection, and that the film is not too shrunken or solidified into a hockey puck, and that one doesn’t necessarily care about any associated audio track. But where does one start with an unmarked 3/4” U-matic that may not even be a video recording?

The examples could go on, but what I put forth here is that the concept of what the “product” is may not be the same across all situations; it may require adjustment in certain cases. What G&M focus on is the finding aid and moving collections towards access. When dealing with audiovisual materials, accessibility is more often dependent on reformatting or maintaining equipment for the various media types and formats at hand – something not necessarily done or available at collecting institutions.

In this regard, I would propose that the desired product from processing audiovisual materials is not a traditional finding aid, but an item level accounting of the assets – not necessarily at a full descriptive level, and potentially reliant on estimates, but something that at least touches on the technical data points (format, run time, recording standards, etc.) that , combined with a prioritization plan, would help an archive determine their needs for playback or reformatting that would support access.

If the product does not support the basic archival delivery need of access, then the minimalized process does not seem sufficient to even be worth the minimal effort.

— Joshua Ranger

Kara Van Malssen Instructing Digital Preservation For Videotape Workshop

AVPS Senior Consultant Kara Van Malssen will be in Middletown, Connecticut this Friday to conduct a workshop on Digital Preservation for Videotape. Co-sponsored by Independent Media Arts Preservation (IMAP) and the New England Archivists Spring 2012 Meeting, the workshop will review digitization case studies as well as covering the topics:

– Basic digital file creation
– Preservation and access file formats and codecs
– Software
– Storage and trusted digital repositories
– Workflows for digitization, and
– Technical and preservation metadata

IMAP has been providing important resources and training to media collection managers both within and without traditional archives for over 10 years now. This collaboration between NEA and IMAP is a good example of the types of efforts and partnerships our field will have to continue to maintain in order to share knowledge and make sure all collections have an opportunity to be properly cared for. Way to go, and way to go Kara!

« Previous Page — Next Page »