Images Stored on a CD-RW

[06Honda]

I have a number of images on a CD-RW from 2008 and some of them only partially load up in preview. They were originally stored and processed from a window based pc but I am not sure if this is the issue. Any ideas, the top half loads fine but the rest of the image won't load, shows solid grey on screen.The images end with .jpg so I am guessing it has nothing to do with being original stored from a pc windows based setup?

[ijohn.8.80]

Originally Posted by 06Honda

I have a number of images on a CD-RW from 2008 and some of them only partially load up in preview. They were originally stored and processed from a window based pc but I am not sure if this is the issue. Any ideas, the top half loads fine but the rest of the image won't load, shows solid grey on screen.The images end with .jpg so I am guessing it has nothing to do with being original stored from a pc windows based setup?

Have you actually imported any onto your Mac for this? Or are you reading from the CD? Try importing a few and see if the issue still occurs. There's so many variables here, just trying to narrow it down a bit.

[06Honda]

I have just tried reading using preview from the CD. Will attempt to import into IPhoto and see what happens, thanks.

[OreoCookie]

First of all, PCs and Macs use the same CD/DVD drives, there is no difference on a technical level. It's just that in my experience CD-Rs and CD-RWs are a very, very bad long-term storage medium. I've had a big collection of CD-Rs (200~300), and at least 30 % of them have had data that has since become unreadable. My advice is to get all data off of CD-Rs and put them onto hard drives. The amount of data that fits on a CD is minuscule by today's standards.

[06Honda]

Good advice on the storage options, will get an external device. Finished the import and 114 were good, 140 unreadable.

[wolfpuppies3]

"Unlike pressed original CDs, burned CDs have a relatively short life span of between two to five years, depending on the quality of the CD,"

[Prodo123]

Burned CDs have a short lifespan. It is likely that the dye layer that contain the data has degraded to the point of no return, sorry.
At this point it won't matter if there are scratches or scuffs on the CD; the damage is in the actual reflective stuff sandwiched in the plastic.
Next time, if you plan on archiving with optical media, use DVD. They have higher capacity and longer lifespan (in fact every bit better than CDs except for read rate).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

Next time, if you plan on archiving with optical media, use DVD. They have higher capacity and longer lifespan (in fact every bit better than CDs except for read rate).

In my experience, DVDs don't fare much better. I've had much, much better luck storing data on multiple hard drives. Unlike with physical media, I have yet to lose a single byte of data due to hardware issues.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

In my experience, DVDs don't fare much better. I've had much, much better luck storing data on multiple hard drives. Unlike with physical media, I have yet to lose a single byte of data due to hardware issues.

True, but with hard drives it's lose-one-lose-all. If a single drive crashes and you have your entire archive on it, then you just lost your entire archive. With DVDs you can split the archive up and should one DVD fail, the rest of the archive is safe.
Although I prefer hard drive storage myself too, disc storage is technically much safer in the case that the storage media fails.
To remedy this we have RAID redundant storage to have multiple copies of a single hard drive in case that one of the drives fail. OP should try one of these out

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

True, but with hard drives it's lose-one-lose-all.

That's why I wrote multiple hard drives in my post. I don't have one backup drive, I have three plus a Crashplan account. If all of my backups were to fail, I probably have more serious problems than lost data (zombies perhaps? ).

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

That's why I wrote multiple hard drives in my post. I don't have one backup drive, I have three plus a Crashplan account. If all of my backups were to fail, I probably have more serious problems than lost data (zombies perhaps? ).

I hear dead hard drives make a good weapon against zombies so you're covered

[Somepix]

Sometimes, reading a damaged CD or DVD on an other drive helps to recover data. Some DVD readers are more "robust" than others.

[Bear]

Also, on average DVDRs seem to have a shorter life than CDRs.

And another important thing to watch out for, I've had some DVDRs that were 2 or more years old where the layers started separating. This is not something you want to put into a DVD drive, especially a slot loading drive. This issue seems to be brand specific and fortunately I only had a few discs from those brands.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by Bear

Also, on average DVDRs seem to have a shorter life than CDRs.

And another important thing to watch out for, I've had some DVDRs that were 2 or more years old where the layers started separating. This is not something you want to put into a DVD drive, especially a slot loading drive. This issue seems to be brand specific and fortunately I only had a few discs from those brands.

This mirrors my experience. To expand, my experience is that a CD-R will work in pretty much any device that is supposed to work. However, they last for several years. DVD-Rs are a different animal. First off, not all blank DVD-R work with all readers. You must first identify the proper combination of blank media, burner, and reader. This can be done only by experimentation. Once burned, my experience is that a burned DVD will last for as little as a few weeks.

Optical discs are burned using light. The optically-sensitive dye remains sensitve to light and will be affected by light if exposed to it. I urge anyone who burns optical discs to store them so that light exposure is minimal.

[Scepticalscribe]

Fascinating and informative thread. I have learned something new today - I hadn't realised that burned CDs - unlike pressed CDs - had such a short life span. Extraordinary.

Thanks for sharing this information. Threads such as this are one of the reasons I like MR so much.

[mofunk]

Originally Posted by 06Honda

I have just tried reading using preview from the CD. Will attempt to import into IPhoto and see what happens, thanks.

Try finding a PC or a friend with a PC. Load the photos there and then email them to you or put them on a flash drive so that you can transfer them to your Mac.


I've always used DVD-R. That's what came with my first Mac. Yeah they used to ship blanks DVD-R with their computers. From what I remember, back then you could only use DVD-R/CD-R. If I tried putting anything else in, it doesn't work. Since I still used my Mac that I bought in 2000, I like using the DVD-Rs. I have some that are over 10yrs old. Sony has work best for me. If you drag your photos to the disc, you should be find. Storing in a dark area of your room helps keep them safe.

idk how CDs have a short life span? I have a few dating back when they first came out Just got to store them properly. In fact the Cds are a little bit thicker and better quality.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by mofunk

...
idk how CDs have a short life span? I have a few dating back when they first came out Just got to store them properly. In fact the Cds are a little bit thicker and better quality.

The quality of blank CDs has varied over time. And in general I have found that recordable CDs hold out better than recordable DVDs. Individual experiences will differ of course, but I'm reading and hearing much the same from other people.

[Rowbear]

Very interesting trend.

Would USB keys be more reliable than CD's , DVD's , etc ?

[mofunk]

The only problem I have with using USB keys is that the next computer you buy may not be able to read it.

[compuwar]

Originally Posted by mofunk

The only problem I have with using USB keys is that the next computer you buy may not be able to read it.

That was true of punched cards, paper tape and cassettes too. There's always a period where you need to transition to the next storage medium.

Paul

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by compuwar

That was true of punched cards, paper tape and cassettes too. There's always a period where you need to transition to the next storage medium.

Paul

I've come across so many computers running XP unable to read exFAT. This has rendered public libraries practically useless for emergency photo dumping to a flash drive, since I use exFAT on both my cards and my flash drives.
Extremely annoying, very problematic.
(but then again that's their problem for not keeping software up to date)

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

...
Extremely annoying, very problematic.
(but then again that's their problem for not keeping software up to date)

If it's their problem, then why are you the one posting complaints on this forum.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

If it's their problem, then why are you the one posting complaints on this forum.

1. Because complaining to thousands of lazy public facilities still using XP is just futile
2. Because you know, self help and things

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

1. Because complaining to thousands of lazy public facilities still using XP is just futile
2. Because you know, self help and things

1. Making prudent use of resources is not the same a lazy. For many companies, it is policy to stay two generations behind Microsoft's current release of Windows.
2. Self-help meaning doing it yourself, not whining to strangers thousands of miles away.

The point that I am making is that it was your decision to use ExFAT. IMHO, it is the answer to question that no one asked. NTFS is generally considered to be a reliable file system. FAT-based file systems are considered to be anything but. FAT32 and its older siblings use two File Allocation Tables to ensure file system integrity with only limited success. ExFAT uses only one. I cannot escape the feeling that this will not end well.

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

1. Making prudent use of resources is not the same a lazy. For many companies, it is policy to stay two generations behind Microsoft's current release of Windows.
2. Self-help meaning doing it yourself, not whining to strangers thousands of miles away.

The point that I am making is that it was your decision to use ExFAT. IMHO, it is the answer to question that no one asked. NTFS is generally considered to be a reliable file system. FAT-based file systems are considered to be anything but. FAT32 and its older siblings use two File Allocation Tables to ensure file system integrity with only limited success. ExFAT uses only one. I cannot escape the feeling that this will not end well.

It's people's ignorance and unwillingness to accept new technology which hinders adoption of the new and improved. This includes self-inhibition by policy. You will not believe how many businesses say they stay on XP because they never bothered to upgrade to Windows 7.
Also, I am not whining but rather citing my own experience for others to relate to, in hopes that a common solution may be found. After all, this is a forum.
As for the file integrity of exFAT partitions, this is only an issue when one removes a drive without safely ejecting it first. And frankly the issue is so rare that I have never experienced this issue myself, after countless drives in exFAT.
Of course exFAT is a necessity when shooting video since it removes the 4GB file size limit of the FAT32 system as well as the maximum partition size. In fact i have found that i have experienced much more problems with FAT32 than exFAT, more the reason why exFAT is superior to FAT32 and why people should adopt it more...