From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> Don Cox wrote in comment on
> On 22/07/03, Walter Cybulski wrote:
> > Is microfilm supposed to replace the original or serve as an access
> > medium?
> This is the same question as is raised by a digital transfer of audio or
> film material.
> I think it can both act as an access medium and as an emergency
> reserve if the originals do get lost. The microfilm or digital version
> can also be duplicated relatively easily so a copy can be provided
> for another library or institute.
----- that reason alone should argue the case for a microform or digital
> If there is a copy of your colour microfilm, digital audio, etc stored
> in New Zealand, then at least there is something left if the library
> gets bombed, looted, or attacked by accountants. Not as good as the
> original, but better than nothing.
----- no, and that is precisely why limiting access to such a copy instead of
retaining the original (such as bound newspapers) is so frustrating. However,
there are eternal cost issues!
> The technical problem is that digital transfers, although easy to
> copy, are much more fragile than microfilm because of the complexity of
> the formats.
----- could we say that it takes more intelligence and more money to work
with the electronically digital formats?
----- by the way (response to another mail): I do not know a colour microfilm
that has the resolution of B/W microfilm. However, who has not suspected
shoddy microfilming to be the reason for frequent labels "best available