Disc Rot and Collecting: What Can We Do About It?

[Spuro]

Apologies if there's already a topic for this.

I've been reading up on Disc Rot lately. For those not in the know, disc rot refers to a chemical breakdown of the disc over time. Generally what happens is the lacquer breaks down causing the metal layer to corrode. Because of how incredibly thin the metal layer is it will actually just dissolve, leaving small gaps. This also leads to the label chipping off so when you hold up a disc to the light you can see pinpricks through the label. Without the metal layer intact the laser can't read the disc. Discs are read by detecting the differences in light reflected back at the sensor. Without the metal layer it doesn't reflect, meaning there's nothing for the sensor to read.

As of right now, testing shows the average time for discs to start rotting is 20-25 years. DVDs and Blu-Rays are supposed to be made better and less susceptible. But CD based media stored in average conditions should begin to rot in 20-25 years.

My concerns lie in the fact that many of these movies – particularly non-Godzilla ones, are fairly obscure and don't see many releases in the West. To my knowledge, some films, such as Orochi: The Eight Headed Dragon, haven't seen a release in the West since the early 2000s. For those who value alternative versions and dubs of existing films, or bonus features that might be exclusive to certain releases, the crisis is potentially even steeper. And our 20-25 year limit is beginning to catch up to us...

My question here, for those more knowledgeable than I am, is what we can do as fans to preserve our collections for future decades?

[Servanov]

This is a classic example of how media may convince us of "its on DVD/Blu-Ray/CD so it lasts forever."

Simply put, that's not true.

Data lasts for a relatively short amount of time, even with good preservation efforts in the digital domain. All records of anything you want to last for a long amount of time should be preserved in the analog realm, as it is far superior as far as long-term preservation is concerned. Thankfully, this is done at the studio level in pretty much 95% of cases, the outliers being well known, (*cough cough The Alamo*). So, if you're worried about the soundtracks to a film or the film itself disappearing, rest assured, they're being preserved.

The Japanese ones, at least.

However, if you're worried about your CDs or DVDs or Blu-Rays facing disc rot, which is a very valid concern, I suggest this solution. For whatever medium you want to save, back up the files onto you hard drive temporarily, ISO, menus, everything. There are many programs that can do this. Then, take a blank disc that matches the original and burn the saved back-up onto a new disc. That, at the very least, gives you a physical copy of a CD/DVD so your only copy isn't just a rotting disc. Best of all, since it is digital, unlike film or tape, making a copy does not give you generation loss, so you won't have to worry about losing anything on the move over to the new disc. I have done this once or twice with some CDs I have. Not because of disc rot but simply for preservation's sake. I'm a stickler about things, so I will actually make a cassette tape recording of the CDs most important to me (*cough cough Clerks) if I feel up to the task, but you don't have to go that far. Hope this helps.

-SNI

[The Octopus]

^ How bout flash drives? I transferred all my data from my CD Roms to my DVD Roms years ago but was planning to move that data to Flash Drives.

[Chrispy_G]

CDs begin to rot after 20 years? DVDs and Blu Rays last longer? 25 to 30 years? Hell....I like to think whatever the 'next step' is, we'll be fully ingrained in that by then. I am a physical over digital guy every day of the week....but EVENTUALLY digital and streaming will reach a point where they are basically flawless. Just imagine the leaps in streaming quality in the last 10 years, now double or triple that?

I can't even really pinpoint what the oldest DVD I currently own even would be....probably my DVD of Dragonheart? Which I am shocked I haven't upgraded to Blu Ray yet.

I reduce my "collection" every year, and consistently upgrade to Blu Ray or 4K when the opportunities come up...so I like to think most discs in my collection won't begin to rot for at least another 10-15 years or so.

At which point....who knows what the shape and climate of the home market industry will even be?

Perpetually problematic for the very niche material and those who deal in "off the market" discs and etc...but I feel

[Lecontinentperdu]

20-25 years is an alarmist deadline. All my 30 years old CD's are in perfect shape.

I do have a rotten disc, though. But it was a Bluray (those are more akin to this, so dont get rid of your DVD's when “updating" to Blu), and a faulty one. The factory that made it used a bad component, or something like that. You can find lists of risky Bluray editions (sorted by dates of print).

Anyway, at the end of the day, you can't save everything.

I can't see myself transferring the data of my more or less 2000 DVDs/blus. No time, nor space for that (hard drives are just as risky, if not more, and online storage doesn't seem “planet friendly”).

They will live, and they will die, just like everything...

[omgitsgodzilla]

I think old VHS/Beta and Laserdisc releases are probably in more urgent need of preservation, considering their more widespread and seemingly more rapid deterioration at this point, but it is never too soon to start thinking about older DVDs. They used to really pile on the special features, and a lot of those never made the jump to Blu-ray. Plus, with (ahem) certain versions of certain niche films, they're sometimes the best option there is.

[gvamp]

While disc rot is a thing I probably wouldn't worry about it in the foreseeable future. IIRC manufactures have gotten better with the material they used to prolong disc rot.

^ How bout flash drives? I transferred all my data from my CD Roms to my DVD Roms years ago but was planning to move that data to Flash Drives.

If you want to go that route, it'd recommend using an external HDD as they are often cheaper and have more storage than flash drives. I work at the local Wal-mart and used to be in the electronics department the largest capacity flash drive we sold was 256GB and that cost $45, for $5-$10 more you could get a 1TB external HDD and have four times the amount of storage than that 256GB flash drive. True flash drives are more portable but in terms of backing up your media unless you want to compress it, its more feasible to use an external HDD vs a flash drive based on the storage alone.

[omgitsgodzilla]

I suspect that's the benefit of using a mature technology. Hard drives are larger, but they're also older and more refined tech, which probably helps them give you more capacity for a comparable price, and probably better read/write speeds as well. You can really pay a premium for that on newer and more miniaturized formats; the 128GB CFast memory card I bought for my camera set me back about $280.

[Tamura]

Hard drives aren’t that reliable, either. Your best bet is data tapes and to just keep migrating with each new generation of tape.

[LegendZilla]

They need to just replace plastic discs with this soon :

[Malchik]

This is a classic example of how media may convince us of "its on DVD/Blu-Ray/CD so it lasts forever."
Thankfully, this is done at the studio level in pretty much 95% of cases, the outliers being well known, (*cough cough The Alamo*). So, if you're worried about the soundtracks to a film or the film itself disappearing, rest assured, they're being preserved.-SNI

Universal did a great job preserving all their master recordings. Storing a centuries of audio tapes in a single building was genius.

[Servanov]

Universal did a great job preserving all their master recordings. Storing a centuries of audio tapes in a single building was genius.

Oh, yes, of course, along with junking scenes cut out for a home video version (cough, cough Lawrence of Arabia).

A home. Video. Version.

[Malchik]

Toho must take notes from them.

[Joseph Goodman]

Oh, yes, of course, along with junking scenes cut out for a home video version (cough, cough Lawrence of Arabia).

A home. Video. Version.

You might be thinking of a different movie (I want to say Blues Brothers, but don't quote me on that); LoA was Columbia, not Universal, and while it had an extensive history of being cut and re-cut until the final 1988 Director's Cut, I don't recall there being scenes cut and junked for home video.

[Terasawa]

Universal is also relevant to the discussion because they boneheadedly issued a lot of multi-film discs in the 2000s on DVD-18. Those discs seem to be especially prone to rot and a lot of consumers could never get them to play in the first place. Some of these have since been reissued on more conventional DVD-9.

[Servanov]

To Joseph Goodman:

LoA was cut on two occasions from its original cut (three if you count the restored Director's Cut, but I won't for this purpose). It went from its 1962 premiere version (222 min) to its 1963 general release version (202). The final cut was in 1971 for TV (this is what I meant by the Home Video version, as it was eventually used for HV), and eventually, a theatrical re-release (187 min). In this, as was common at the time, scenes cut would be junked, and if we get lucky, simply stored separately. For LoA it was a mix of both when Robert Harris restored the film in 1989. It's very interesting to read into.

[Tamura]

The final cut was in 1971 for TV (this is what I meant by the Home Video version, as it was eventually used for HV)

Then it wasn't cut for a home video version. I don't see why this translates to a specific outrage towards a subsequent home video incarnation that grandfathered those edits.

Before home video there was no preservation mindset held by any major studios, not just Toho and Universal. The loss of footage and entire works pre-home video doesn't inspire rage in me anymore than any other historical act of destruction that we have no control over. The problem is some studios' archives are massively understaffed and underfunded to this day. Studios and IP owners are wary of restoring even some of their most culturally valuable assets due to the high costs of restoration. This is what happens when you subject cultural heritage to harsh free market economics.

[Servanov]

That is my bad for the misnomer.

The loss of footage and entire works pre-home video doesn't inspire rage in me anymore than any other historical act of destruction that we have no control over.

That's where I personally disagree. The loss of footage does inspire rage in me partly because (and this is not always the case, but it is many times) these films are hits and have a large cultural impact from the start of their run. In my opinion, when say, a film like Lawrence, wins 7 Oscars, there is no excuse to not understand that the film, as it was in its original form, is important and should be preserved as best as possible. Imagine if a modern hit film, such as The Dark Knight, released as it did. Nominated for Oscars and wins a few. The film is a major success and undeniably revolutionizes the film landscape. Then, when it comes out on HV for the first time, there's twenty or so minutes of footage missing because the studio thought it should be shorter. Those trims are deleted and, if we're lucky, simply poorly preserved and put in bad storage conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that nowadays, and not in 1962, there are Cam-Rips and DCP rips and clever pirates out there who would have that different cut, I think we would all agree that the fact the studio didn't see that the film was important enough to preserve as it originally was would be an infuriating concept. Now that is my opinion, so don't take it as the only proper way to think.

Before home video there was no preservation mindset held by any major studios, not just Toho and Universal. The problem is some studios' archives are massively understaffed and underfunded to this day. Studios and IP owners are wary of restoring even some of their most culturally valuable assets due to the high costs of restoration. This is what happens when you subject cultural heritage to harsh free market economics.

I would say that perhaps the preservation mindset came into view closer to when films began to be broadcast on television, in about the early 60s. Not to say they were the best efforts or they had the best ideas about it, but it definitely was the beginning of moving away from the concept of motion pictures being like newspapers, sort of a one-and-done deal. Also, on another note, I am in total agreement about the fact that restoration efforts are dictated by money in almost 99% of the cases, which is unfortunately true. I don't see how it could be done any other way without losing money unless via private donations (which do happen, especially in fan restorations, where the restorationists are obligated NOT to make money off the releases). Thankfully there are non-profit preservation efforts such as the Library of Congress who realize the importance of the films, and select films to preserve regardless of whether they are profitable.

[Tamura]

That is my bad for the misnomer.

The loss of footage and entire works pre-home video doesn't inspire rage in me anymore than any other historical act of destruction that we have no control over.

That's where I personally disagree. The loss of footage does inspire rage in me partly because (and this is not always the case, but it is many times) these films are hits and have a large cultural impact from the start of their run. In my opinion, when say, a film like Lawrence, wins 7 Oscars, there is no excuse to not understand that the film, as it was in its original form, is important and should be preserved as best as possible. Imagine if a modern hit film, such as The Dark Knight, released as it did. Nominated for Oscars and wins a few. The film is a major success and undeniably revolutionizes the film landscape. Then, when it comes out on HV for the first time, there's twenty or so minutes of footage missing because the studio thought it should be shorter. Those trims are deleted and, if we're lucky, simply poorly preserved and put in bad storage conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that nowadays, and not in 1962, there are Cam-Rips and DCP rips and clever pirates out there who would have that different cut, I think we would all agree that the fact the studio didn't see that the film was important enough to preserve as it originally was would be an infuriating concept. Now that is my opinion, so don't take it as the only proper way to think.

Again, film studios before home video did not have a consistent preservation mindset or ethical code at all. OCNs were being overprinted, damaged and gradually replaced with interneg, stuff got lost, deliberately edited or destroyed, cut up and repurposed as stock footage, sold to TV with edits... film was ephemeral and made solely for short term profit. I doubt the studios would have understood the perspective you and most film fans today hold. They had no concept of "preservation," and therefore no concept of "preserving as best as possible." The roadshow release was just that, the roadshow release... when it was over, it was over, a thing of the past. If you wanted to see that version, you would probably be told "why didn't you see it at that time and place, then?" In a way, films like LoA are LESS lucky than less significant films because they were extremely profitable films whose prints and negs were worn out, that were reissued and tampered with over and over. It doesn't surprise me.

The few significant films, out of the countless that were ever released, got reissued or given a primetime network premiere. That was the luxury great films enjoyed. Those were the outliers. If you were lucky, some random theater could have booked an old, heavily worn print years later, or you could have seen a film like 2001 or Casablanca or something in university if you chose to study film. You had no idea when or where the film would appear on TV, if ever. That's it.

It's hard to imagine a world where you can't watch an extant old film at will, where probably 99.9% of people seeing a roadshow film in its edited general release had no idea what was cut, and where there was no internet on which people could talk about highly technical film details and film preservation ethics, isn't it? You can't compare treatment of The Dark Knight today to the past treatment of LoA. It's a completely different landscape now. The idea of a "director's cut" or "original roadshow version" as a marketable thing after a film was initially released as such - especially for home viewing - was an unthinkable concept, and no studio would have understood the desire for it. If you weren't lucky enough to see the roadshow, too bad. We are immensely privileged to be able to recreate the experiences of the past.

I'm not a LoA scholar but I doubt the footage wasn't initially restored on home video due to malice or something, the footage was probably just misplaced, or it was acknowledged that they could only be restored at a great expense, necessitating Harris' restoration.

I get the outrage over boneheaded shit that happened to great films in the past, but for me it's like getting mad about the Titanic. It IS infuriating, but it's a distant event we can't change. It's a lesson we can learn from and research that can help improve situations after the fact. Multiple inquiries into the Titanic led to stricter maritime safety regulations. Similarly, I'm sure a lot of detective work went into creating a timeline of LoA's cutting and a family tree of the different elements, all of which led to the film being restored to the degree that it was.

I'd rather get riled up about what we CAN change. As in, economic dogma regarded as "inevitable" and "human nature" which leads to a handful of cashcows getting a massive amount of money thrown at them for expensive, LoA-type restorations, while the lion's share of films can't even get an adequate, publicly accessible copy. THIS is what is happening right now. What can we do to even reach the point where we know how inaccurate a current copy of any random film is compared to a desired "original" form, what the best elements are and where they can be found? How lucky some films are, that we even know how expensive a potential restoration would be... what can we do to change these circumstances in which films are still considered only as valuable as they are profitable, where gigantic entertainment monopolies swallow each other up and blacklist their back catalogs, where it is considered pragmatic to recycle an HD transfer made over 10 years ago using 90's tech, and where faceless, unaccountable corporations assert absolute control over whether a foreign importer puts even a few trailers on their home video release, like a king?

Before home video there was no preservation mindset held by any major studios, not just Toho and Universal. The problem is some studios' archives are massively understaffed and underfunded to this day. Studios and IP owners are wary of restoring even some of their most culturally valuable assets due to the high costs of restoration. This is what happens when you subject cultural heritage to harsh free market economics.

I would say that perhaps the preservation mindset came into view closer to when films began to be broadcast on television, in about the early 60s. Not to say they were the best efforts or they had the best ideas about it, but it definitely was the beginning of moving away from the concept of motion pictures being like newspapers, sort of a one-and-done deal. Also, on another note, I am in total agreement about the fact that restoration efforts are dictated by money in almost 99% of the cases, which is unfortunately true. I don't see how it could be done any other way without losing money unless via private donations (which do happen, especially in fan restorations, where the restorationists are obligated NOT to make money off the releases). Thankfully there are non-profit preservation efforts such as the Library of Congress who realize the importance of the films, and select films to preserve regardless of whether they are profitable.

There is no debate in the archival community about when film studios decided to get their act together. Trust me. The studios started caring in the '80s, when the home video market and a collector's market for film came in... they only cared when they found a profit motive. The motive was classic movie fans hungry to see their movies and stars in home formats with the best picture and sound quality, letterboxed, in director's cuts, etc. and containing lots of bonus features. Being sold to TV in syndication packages and broadcast in a usually shotgunned, commercial-filled form isn't preservation any more than being sold to the 8mm home movie cutdown market was. If new elements were inadvertently struck for TV or 8mm home movie use, great! But it's not the same as searching for lost footage, combining the best sources, striking modern preservation elements and properly storing them so they stand the test of time. Vintage fine grains, IPs and color separations are not preservation materials in the modern sense, either. They sometimes inadvertently helped preserve films better than they would have, but these were normally struck as part of printing workflows, not for long term preservation purposes. There wasn't a long term strategy. Censor scripts or copyright prints? Those were done for legal purposes, not preservation, either. Remember, many high profile lost silent films still existed in the 1960s, only to be lost by the end of the decade... this was not the beginning of the preservation mindset among the studios.

[airforce111]

i think im on a 5th backup on an external hard drive now of my entire bluray collection, 1:1 copy (menus, extras and everything) to preserve everything.