Message-Id: <199805131943.MAB53426@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:43:30 -0400 From: "Wagner,Lynn" <mailto:wagnerl@OCLC.ORG> Subject: Re: request for info on images to microfilm To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> On Tue, 12 May 1998, Stuart Glogoff wrote:
>
> > One of my UA colleagues thought that our Sonoran partners might find
> it
> > easier to digitize first and microfilm from the digital image. This
> > surprised me, since I thought there would be considerable tweaking,
> > adjustments, editing, etc. to digitize these materials.
>
and Jim Beaven wrote: >>This is not a good idea. It is better to Microfilm the documents then
> scan them. Microfilming will with 35mm picks up more details then
> scanning right now. . . . Scanning just can not eqaul the detail
> that microfilming can do right now. If you scan then microfilm from
> the
> Tiffs, you will loose details.
>
>>Plus technology is moving along at a
> very fast rate. . . . .While Microfilm will be around for a long
> time.
>
I'll second the motion. It's better to film first. Preservation quality microfilm has a life expectancy of 500 years. Managing digital data seems to be filled with unknowns in terms of cost to maintain, refresh, and migrate. Producing computer output microfilm (COM) from the digital images effectively preserves the technology of today.I would also be concerned with How these 300 year old fragile originals would be scanned directly. flat bed scanner? digital camera? be wary of bright lights and long exposure times.
Microfilm still has a place and it should be strongly considered for any preservation project because it puts the preservation issue safely to rest since there are standards and a longer proven history than digital.
Lynn Wagner Preservation Resources http://www.oclc.org/presres/