I spent a fair chunk of time this week considering what kind of file types Creative Works currently produces, and what they should consider using for various purposes. Most of that time I spent examining the many options for video. None of which are terribly attractive for long term archiving. I was quickly reminded how messy and chaotic the evolution of digital video has been, and how even the most popular and widely used formats in use today will be considered quaint in less than 5 years.

I poured through lengthy comparisons of the archival merits of exotic formats, and checked various institutions for their minimum standards for video submissions. Ultimately I ended up believing that NARA’s requirements were the most down-to-earth and realistic for Joe’s, given that their editors are all beginner level yet their reuse patterns most resemble a production house, not a cultural heritage institution. NARA’s guidelines made provisions for such business needs.

In fact, the business needs and reuse patterns of Joe’s had me making recommendations for both video and still images that I’m slightly scared would be career limiting without explanation. In short, I believe that cultural heritage institutions have the luxury of not considering the expediency of workflow. They can save in whatever format preserves maximum data without fear of how that format affects their ability to use it. In most other businesses access is of far greater value, and they are willing to make compromises to achieve it. Having lived in that world for a long time now, and having personally felt the effects of inaccessible assets, I find that I’d rather guide the decision makers in that system to make informed decisions, but not at the expense of their ability to work. Sometimes that means allowing them to save in a lossy format. The horror!