Message-Id: <mailto:199504202025.PAA00631@wugate.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:56:02 CDT From: John FRIEND <mailto:John.Friend@CCMAIL.ADP.WISC.EDU> Subject: Re: 16mm vs. 35mm Microfilm To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
> We have recently been awarded a grant to microfilm approximately
>80 bound volumes of official township records dating back to 1857. When
>we requested bids, we did not specify 16mm or 35mm microfilm.
>Consequently, we have been receiving bids from some companies
>recommending 16mm and from others recommending 35mm. Our question is:
> Is there a standard or preferred format (16 or 35mm) for preservation
>microfilm? Or what are the advantages/disadvantages of each?
> Thank you in advance for your input.
In the 3/92 edition of the Research Libraries Group's "Preservation Microfilming Handbook" they state "At this time, the only permissible master negative format for RLG projects is 35mm roll silver gelatin film." They go on to say ..."RLG will revisit its stance on format on a regular basis."
I haven't heard about any change in there definition of preservation microfilming so I assume they still allow only 35mm in RLG cooperative projects. The RLG standards are as strict or more so than any I have read.
The ANSI/AIIM standards speak more to the make-up of the film (whether it's silver halide or not) and don't say much about the width. If everything is done correctly, start to finish, 16mm silver film will last as long as 35mm or 105mm etc.
The problem is not everything is always done correctly. That is one of the reasons 35mm is preferred (and in RLG's case demanded) over 16mm. Although 16mm can capture more information in the same amount of space as 35mm, if/when damage occurs, that much information can be lost on the 16mm. Also the size of the original makes a difference. 8 1/2 x 11 or smaller lends itself to 16mm quite well, but I would never film bound volumes on 16mm.
In fact here at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin we completely discontinued using 16mm film back in the early 80's. Trying to view such large documents on such a small format is frustrating at least, and darn near impossible sometimes. New technology used to make microfilm readers may be changing this but like many Gov't agencies, there isn't a lot of extra money around to replace the older readers we have, so it will be some time before we could take advantage of this.
To keep a long story from getting longer, IMHO 35mm is definitely preferred and although I don't think there is a standard requiring it, I think there should be.
John A. Friend Microfilm Lab Supervisor - SHSW email mailto:john.friend@ccmail.adp.wisc.edu phone 608-264-6523
p.s. did you happen to include toning in your bid specs?