[HN Gopher] Twibright Optar - OPTical ARchiver - a codec for enc...
___________________________________________________________________
Twibright Optar - OPTical ARchiver - a codec for encoding data on
paper
Author : pmoriarty
Score : 62 points
Date : 2022-03-27 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ronja.twibright.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ronja.twibright.com)
| rubicks wrote:
| > Reducing the space necessary to keep accounting records that
| are mandatory to be kept on paper
|
| I can't wait to see the ensuing hilarity when this is challenged
| in court.
| 41b696ef1113 wrote:
| I am reminded of NanoRosetta[0] which will engrave your data onto
| a physical ~coin sized object.
|
| [0] https://nanorosetta.com/
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| This reminds me of the Danmere Backer, which was for backing up
| data to VHS tapes.
| webmaven wrote:
| This reminds me of Xerox DataGlyphs:
|
| https://microglyphs.com/english/html/dataglyphs.shtml
| wazoox wrote:
| There are systems now to archive masses of data on film. Contrary
| to ordinary printed paper, film can easily last several decades
| and even centuries.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| I disagree, microfilms from only a few decades ago have
| degraded to the point of being near-illegible. Even low-quality
| paper has been far more reliable than that.
| mburee wrote:
| On that note, "Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker
| wazoox wrote:
| I'm talking about 35mm film infrequently accessed, not
| microfilm which is mostly degraded by repeated reading.
|
| Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last more than a few
| decades AFAIK. Color 35mm film is stable for at least 60
| years in ordinary conditions and B&W film 100 years and more.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| > Typical laser-printed paper doesn't last
|
| Many options there. I'm more concerned about printer-ink
| longevity. Tough to chase that down (recent tech). This
| page about preserving photos looks relevant; recommends
| coated halide or ink-jet for 100+ years)
| [https://www.shutterbug.com/content/how-long-will-your-
| digita...].
|
| Paper's been around forever, so have long-lasting inks ...
| but printer-ink is too new. Typewriters have been around
| over a century ... haven't seen studies!
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Polymers degrade all on their own without physical action.
|
| Microfiche or other photographic film is merely more dense
| and "pretty good" longevity.
|
| But the goal here is maximum robustness, including all
| aspects of the system or life cycle. Ubiquity,
| dependencies, acessibility, are important aspects, more
| important than information density.
|
| A film that lasts 200 years instead of thousands is not
| better.
|
| A film that requires a whole specialized infrastructure to
| produce the materials, is not better.
|
| A technology that requires a special media or special
| writer or special reader, is not better.
|
| Paper is both very long lasting, it's also easy to get,
| easy to print, and easy to read with only basic equipment
| and process requirements, and it only matters that the
| paper and ink are as durable as you want them to be.
|
| IE, you need paper, printer, camera, and computer, and if
| you also want longevity then you also need to select
| durable ink and paper, but it doesn't matter what kind
| exact kind of paper printer, camera or computer. If these
| were printed 40 years ago with dot matrix printers, it
| doesn't matter that in 200 years paper may not be made out
| of wood cellulose any more, or what kind of tech printers,
| cameras and computers are based on at that time. All that
| matters is that your choice of ink and paper aren't the
| obviously ephemeral types like thermal receipt printers or
| most inkjet.
|
| The 40 year old dot matrix version of this would just have
| lower data density than what a laser printer can attain,
| but it would be perfectly scannable today, and it wouldn't
| matter if today no one makes tractor feed paper any more,
| or that you're scanning it with a phone instead of some
| photodiode contraption.
|
| Aside from the simpleness of the paper & ink itself, the
| ubiquity is a huge functionality aspect.
|
| It's not better if it requires a photo lab to produce and a
| special viewer to read. A microfich viewer is not exactly
| high tech, but I don't have one, nor does my coffee shop
| nor any hotel or airport I've ever been in. But printers
| and cameras are everywhere, which means anyone can use them
| any where any time.
|
| And the critical point is it's not just todays printers and
| paper and inks that manufacturers just happen to be mass
| producing today. The image doesn't care what tech was used
| to print it, or scan it, it remains functional even when
| all the tech changes.
|
| The tech agnosticism and ubiquity/accessibility are the
| critically important features. They're not nice or
| optional, they're central, they're the explicit defined
| purposes and that outweigh all other considerations.
|
| There is no film anywhere that even comes close to doing as
| good a job as a printer and paper for the stated goals of
| this project.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Paper can also easily last centuries. I have some century old
| paper in my house, just sitting on the bookshelf. There are
| archives with examples that are upwards of a thousand years
| old. If we include parchments, we have surviving documents
| predating the pyramids.
| [deleted]
| traverseda wrote:
| Where? I can't find them.
| wazoox wrote:
| There's this one https://digifilm-corp.com/home And another
| one I can't find right now, it's a Norwegian company.
| traverseda wrote:
| Thanks! Google just could not find anything in this field
| for me.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| This is pretty cool and I remember seeing something similar some
| years back. It would be nice to add a long range erasure code on
| top of the FEC, in case there is an ink splotch or the like.
| WinterMount223 wrote:
| How does this compare to printed base 64, then OCR? It seems more
| robust to print and recognize text than binary patterns. You can
| always type it out if you are desperate.
| 41b696ef1113 wrote:
| At minimum, I would want to use one of the encodings that
| avoids oO0il1 ambiguity. Maybe settle for hex in a pinch.
| rubicks wrote:
| 3750 characters/page at 6 bits/character gets you 22.5
| kbits/page or ~2.8kB/page. Optar apparently does 200kB/page.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Previous discussion of PaperBack (which, in turn, references
| Optar): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10245836
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-27 23:01 UTC)