Message-Id: <mailto:199505042046.PAA15318@library.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 16:38:03 -0400 From: "mailto:Walter_Gilbert@UMAIL.UMD.EDU--Maryland" <WALT@UMDD.bitnet> Subject: Re: Microfilm To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
On Thu, 4 May 1995 13:47:10 EDT Lee Dirks said (see below) >Message:
Wow! Interesting approach! Hmmm."Micorfilm should last at least 500 years. Scanned images are great for access, but do not guarantee long-term preservation."
Funny, this is exactly the opposite of what I think. Microfilm is guaranteed to degrade but bits can be copied and replicated forever with absolutely no loss or degradation. I'll bet in 50 years the only people who will know what microfilm was will be historians and octogenarians.
>In response to the last two postings, it is imperative that
>microfilm be produced to guarantee preservation of the original
>material's informational content. In other words: DON'T forget the
>microfilm! We can't be satisfied with the potentially temporary
>existence of scanned images, so we must also protect ourselves and
>produce a microfilm version of the material which -- if produced and
>stored correctly -- should last at least 500 years. Scanned images
>are great for access, but do not guarantee long-term preservation.
>Lee Dirks
>PRESERVATION RESOURCES
>Bethlehem, PA
>(800) 773-7222
Walter Gilbert, Asst. Dir. mailto:Walter_Gilbert@umail.umd.edu Computer Science Center Manager: Teaching Technologies University of Maryland at College Park 20742-2411 (301)405-6727