Message-Id: <mailto:199503201630.KAA27734@library.wustl.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 11:10:26 -0500 From: Bob Rosenberg <mailto:rarosenb@GANDALF.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Re: Microfilm Digitization To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
>Because COM does not meet even the basic standards for preservation
>quality microfilm, specifically the RLG Guidelines for preservation
>microfilm. Our greatest concern is the longevity of the master
>negative, when -- if properly processed and stored -- should last at
>least 500 years. COM does not have that lifespan or quality. Nor
>do digital scans of the same images. As Rothenberg states in his
>January 1995 Scientific American article, "It is only slightly
>facetious to say that digital information lasts forever--or five
>years, whichever comes first."
>-Lee Dirks (Preservation Resources, Bethlehem, PA (800) 773-7222)
>
Why can't one use preservation-quality silver halide film? Image quality is one problem, but the lifespan is a function of the film stock.
Bob Rosenberg | -- Is ignorance worse Thomas A. Edison Papers | than apathy? Rutgers University | -- I don't know, and mailto:rarosenb@gandalf.rutgers.edu | I don't care.