Message-Id: <mailto:199505051517.KAA20969@library.wustl.edu> Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 11:14:02 -0500 From: Richard Peek <mailto:RPEK@DB1.CC.ROCHESTER.EDU> Subject: microfilm again To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
Read any good NASA Viking mission tapes lately? Neither has anyone else. What were supposed to be refreshed weren't and now there gone. And there's the rub; just because it's technologically possible doesn't mean people will actually do it. Not to get too histrionic here but everytime I hear "the future will take care of it" talk I think of the pro-nuke supporters reasoning for designing a nuke plant with a LE of only 40 years - in 40 years we will have developed a new and improved plant with a storage/disposal system to address all the problems we create today. Uh-huh. And if you believe that, there's a Facilities Manager position open at the Chernobyl gloWORM Scanning Facility you might be interested in ...And being only humans with limited resources available to us, I wonder if the future will force us to confront the same sort of triage decision-making about scanning and refreshment that we now make about preservation microfilming. With only limited funds to support these activities, what is the most pressing, important, unique, etc., information to be scanned and preserved now. . We can't film everything - nor should we. The same applies to scanning. For now, the hybrid system seems to be the best alternative; create a film master for preservation and digital copies for access. Funny though, if microfilm didn't exist and were it to be developed tomorrow, you would read about it on the front page of the New York Times (right next to KODAK's announcement for a new digital camera).
Richard Peek Preservation Dept. University of Rochester mailto:rpek@db1.cc.rochester.edu