Snaps
|
|
Thread rating:  |
howard - 14 Sep 2003 22:10 GMT Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes...
How do I make a photographic image last a very long time ? I mean a *VERY* long time. I'm talking 5,000 - 20,000 years !
Not digitised but as a viewable image, or negative/slide/print.
Sealed in glass, in a vacuum ?? Laser burn, or etch the image granite or carbon? Or natures way, in amber. ?
Hmmmm ??
Howard.
Terry Wilder - 14 Sep 2003 22:13 GMT > Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Howard. Larger!
Jo Schaper - 14 Sep 2003 22:23 GMT This is going to sound flip, but write it on the wall of a cave.
Much of the cave art is at least that old--it was done with some simple material which stains the rock (ground hematite/chalk/charcoal etc.) and done in an inaccessible place with controlled temperature and humidity conditions, to minimize weathering.
Now exactly how you are going to paint emulsion on a cave wall, and what it should consist of, and how to expose it--well, that's up to you. Maybe stencil it with a screenprint technique...
> Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Howard.
 Signature Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
George - 14 Sep 2003 22:34 GMT > This is going to sound flip, but write it on the wall of a cave. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it should consist of, and how to expose it--well, that's up to you. > Maybe stencil it with a screenprint technique... Of course, we wouldn't want to encourage screenprinting of modern "art" on our cave walls though, would we?
> > Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Howard. Uncle Al - 14 Sep 2003 23:04 GMT > Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sealed in glass, in a vacuum ?? Laser burn, or etch the image > granite or carbon? Or natures way, in amber. ? Survival time as such is not the issue. A frankfurter lasts 50+ years in a landfill (dated by proximate newspapers). Under what conditions? What optical resolution? Photoetched nickel and such will pretty much last forever short of corrosion and abrasion. Ditto photoetched glass and moisture. Photoresist on a silcon wafer, expose, and etch. It's good forever short of fire, hydroxide, or dropping it.
How long did the Rosetta Stone last? Pictures on gravestones? Do offset or silkscreen of pigments or noble metal precursor onto ceramic, fire, then glaze. You can do ink jet printing of ceramic cups and slabs now - that gives you hi-res color. While it is invulnerable, you need considerable infrastructure.
Make a B&W photo and cast inside a thck slab of polyester resin or PMMA. Good for thousands of years. Platinum tone it and cast in plastic is better. Add 0.1% Tinuvin 327 (pale yellow) or Tinuvin 328 (colorless)to the resin for UV resistance, but keep it out of sunlight anyway to avoid degrading the resin.
If all you want is a time capsule, B&W photo (preferably platinum toned; well-washed with distilled water) loosely rolled, inserted, and pumped own hard in a heavy wall Pyrex vacuum tube or ampoule to remove 10% moisture in the paper, then properly flamed shut with a bishop's miter seal. That should last the age of the universe if you keep it out of sunlight - so give it wrap of several layers of aluminum foil or electrolessly plate nickel. If you are really paranoid, put the sealed ampoule in an inch-thick wall Alloy C-2000 Ni-Cr-Mo (Haynes) screw top high pressure bomb (with internal padding).
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 15 Sep 2003 11:21 GMT >> Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Survival time as such is not the issue. It's part of the issue. I'll guarantee you that the thing that won't survive is exactly what you meant to keep; it's one of those Murphy things.
> ..A frankfurter lasts 50+ years >in a landfill (dated by proximate newspapers). Under what [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Make a B&W photo and cast inside a thck slab of polyester resin or >PMMA. Good for thousands of years. <snip recipe>
We (another newsgroup) talked about this during the summer. A bigger issue is carrying enough information within the medium so that what is seen can be understood. Who/whatever looks at the relic a millenium from now will not have a similar context.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Philip Deitiker - 15 Sep 2003 16:31 GMT In sci.archaeology, created a message ID news:bk47tj$j2k$9 @bob.news.rcn.net:
Create a psuedo color image in metal using different metals. Use materials like charcoal, iron oxides and what ever you can find. ONce you finish dip the whole thing in transparent amber from a tree whose amber has good perservative qualities. Then take it to the south pole and find the center of glacial expansion. Dig a hole into the base rock and bury the artefact 2000 feet deep in the root layer. Cap it with with a concrete plug. That should last you a billion years. [Not withstanding that our wonderful particle physicist accidently learn to create matter from nothing, create a whole new universe blow earth to the far ends of ends]
 Signature DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Rick - 16 Sep 2003 03:17 GMT > >> Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that won't survive is exactly what you meant to keep; it's > one of those Murphy things. Just saw an intereting blurb on the Travel Channel, about Mount Rushmore. In 1998 they installed a time capsule inside the mountain, which consists of copies of the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and assorted other documents. They used a simple teak box, enclosed in a thick titanium shell and capped with a 1000 lb. slab of granite.
If that ain't good for 20,000 years, nothing is.
Rick
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 16 Sep 2003 12:08 GMT >> >> Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... >> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >If that ain't good for 20,000 years, nothing is. That may preserve it. My interests aren't into just preservation of the bits; my interests also include being able to use those bits productively. So a part of the preservation is also include enough ABC info so that the more complicated, minimized text can be read as it was written.
The Constitution talks about liberty. Even today, two groups of people interpret that word into two (almost) opposing meanings. I hope they also included a dictionary in the capsule. It's not perfect but can give some clues.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Randy Poe - 16 Sep 2003 16:52 GMT > How long did the Rosetta Stone last? Pictures on gravestones? I don't know if it's because most gravestones use a fairly soft stone, but I'm surprised at how unreadable the inscriptions on 200-year-old stones often are, just from ordinary weathering. On the other hand, indoors (such as in old European cathedrals) inscriptions do much better. But maybe the kind of person who gets a stone inside a major cathedral also gets a better quality of stone and stonecarver.
- Randy
Richard Henry - 16 Sep 2003 18:21 GMT > > How long did the Rosetta Stone last? Pictures on gravestones? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Randy I believe the Rosettta Stone was buried in sediment and thus protected from atmospheric weathering.
Jo Schaper - 16 Sep 2003 21:53 GMT >>How long did the Rosetta Stone last? Pictures on gravestones? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Randy Gravestones are usually limestone or marble, and the "melt" in pH 5 rain. Granite fairs a bit better, but tends to decompose, becoming "gruss" and lose detail.
 Signature Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
Eric Stevens - 14 Sep 2003 23:38 GMT >Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Sealed in glass, in a vacuum ?? Laser burn, or etch the image >granite or carbon? Or natures way, in amber. ? 1. Etch into the surface of a durable and stable material (nickel, stainless steel etc)
2. Make a sandwich of it, with the image to the inside.
3. Put it in orbit.
Eric Stevens
Bruce - 15 Sep 2003 01:56 GMT In sci.physics
>1. Etch into the surface of a durable and stable material (nickel, >stainless steel etc) > >2. Make a sandwich of it, with the image to the inside. > >3. Put it in orbit. Two words: micro meteores
Bruce - 15 Sep 2003 02:02 GMT In sci.physics
>In sci.physics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Two words: micro meteores Or better, micro meteors
zolota - 15 Sep 2003 05:14 GMT > In sci.physics > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Or better, micro meteors Better yet, micro meteorites.
Z
Richard Henry - 15 Sep 2003 05:23 GMT > > In sci.physics > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Better yet, micro meteorites. My astronomy training may have been different than yours. I was taught that the term "meteorite" referred to the remnant portion of a meteor that reached the Earths' surface.
zolota - 16 Sep 2003 08:02 GMT > > > In sci.physics > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the term "meteorite" referred to the remnant portion of a meteor that > reached the Earths' surface. Meteor: A bright trail or streak that appears in the sky when a meteoroid is heated to incandescence by friction with the earth's atmosphere. Also called falling star, meteor burst, shooting star.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=meteor
We are both wrong, the proper words are "micro meteroids". (A "meteorite" referrs to the remnant portion of a meteoroid.)
Z
Eric Stevens - 15 Sep 2003 04:42 GMT >In sci.physics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Two words: micro meteores Why do you think I said make a sandwich of it with the image to the inside?
Eric Stevens
Bruce - 16 Sep 2003 03:23 GMT In sci.physics
>>Two words: micro meteores > >Why do you think I said make a sandwich of it with the image to the >inside? I give up? Ignorance of the kinetic energy contained in a mm diameter ball of nickel, iron or silica moving at 50 miles per second? Why even expose them to this onslaught?
Eric Stevens - 16 Sep 2003 03:59 GMT >In sci.physics > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of nickel, iron or silica moving at 50 miles per second? Why even expose >them to this onslaught? Nope. Knowledge of the size of the craters made by micro-meteors. Of course there is always a chance of a really big one coming along but, apatr from that 10mm of Titanium will stop a lot. You can improve the odds considerably by putting up multiole copies.
Eric Stevens
Gregory L. Hansen - 15 Sep 2003 01:45 GMT >Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Sealed in glass, in a vacuum ?? Laser burn, or etch the image >granite or carbon? Or natures way, in amber. ? Black and white is easy to describe if hard to do. Etch it on glass or something. Color is hard because dyes tend to degrade over time, especially when exposed to light, and it may be hard to get good color rendering with whatever you can find that's stable for as long as you want it to be, although you could always etch three slides and combine red, green, and blue light on a screen.
 Signature "When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Jo Schaper - 15 Sep 2003 02:27 GMT I would be leery of glass as archival material. Windows made 200-250 years ago have "run" over the years, because glass has no crystal structure, not just because it is old.
Quite frankly I would trust low-tech over high-tech for archive purposes, and be more concerned about the environment and environmental change to your image than whatever process you choose.
 Signature Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
Ian Stirling - 15 Sep 2003 02:43 GMT In sci.physics Jo Schaper <joschaper@socket.net> wrote:
> I would be leery of glass as archival material. Windows made 200-250 > years ago have "run" over the years, because glass has no crystal > structure, not just because it is old. No it hasn't. Flat glass is historically recent. Glaziers often installed thick side down as it's easier to do. You will find some panes installed thick end up, left or right too.
 Signature http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- He who lives in a glass house should not invite he who is without sin.
will e - 18 Sep 2003 07:42 GMT I think most newspaper columnists have photos reproduced that were taken sometime during the end of the Pleistocene. If it is just the image you are trying to preserve, you could simply point a slide projector out into space and focus the image onto a screen 5000 light years away. (keeping to your analog only restriction). Will Estavillo
> Can't think of an appropriate Ng, so here goes... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Howard. Jo Schaper - 18 Sep 2003 14:54 GMT > I think most newspaper columnists have photos reproduced that were taken > sometime during the end of the Pleistocene. If it is just the image you are > trying to preserve, you could simply point a slide projector out into space > and focus the image onto a screen 5000 light years away. (keeping to your > analog only restriction). Will Estavillo Dear Will, If you go to pick up developed and mounted 35 mm slides at a well-known US discount chain starting with "W", some rosy-cheeked employee will quiz you at checkout as to: a)why they sent your disposable camera back b)what is in that box? c) is this some digital format? d) how do you look at slides? With your computer? e) I didn't know normal people (not schools) could have slide projectors.
All have happened in the last three months to me, so obviously, 35 mm slides *are* unreadable today (at least by humans <age 25).
Best, Jo
 Signature Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
George - 21 Sep 2003 17:16 GMT > > I think most newspaper columnists have photos reproduced that were taken > > sometime during the end of the Pleistocene. If it is just the image you are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Best, > Jo Hehehehe.
|
|
|