Message-Id: <mailto:199505050609.BAA29077@library.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:11:43 -0700 From: Mike Betz <mailto:betz@WLN.COM> Subject: Re: Microfilm To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
On Thu, 4 May 1995, mailto:Walter_Gilbert@UMAIL.UMD.EDU--Maryland wrote:> 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.
Both options have their problems. The advantage to microfilm is that it can be produced and forgotten. It can be stored after being dessicated and frozen for 500 years.
Yes, digital information can be refreshed, but the shear volume of digital information that has been lost because this procedure was not followed is staggering.
Mike Betz