On 15/11/2013, Tom Fine wrote:

> Hi Malcolm:
>
> What I wish is that someone like the Archive.org donors would step up
> and digitize more microfilms. How hard can it be, it's just scanning a
> perforated film. The whole thing should be very easy to automate, just
> make a "microfilm maw" and pay an intern to keep it fed all day. I
> wonder if one of the big donors to the Newseum could be convinced to
> get into this? There are many little local newspapers around the
> country that for practical purposes exist only on a few rolls of
> microfilm. Hard copies may or may not exist, but they will never be
> scanned and decompose toward dust, more each day.
>
Assuming the microfilm is on a modern film base, it is not at all likely
to turn to dust. Silver-based film, provided it has been correctly
processed, is very long lived.

You will give up on migrating your digital files before the microfilm
decomposes.

Which is not to say that a high resolution scanner (or imager) for
microfilm wouldn't be very useful, but for use rather than preservation.

> As far as a "remote microfilm reader" like you describe, this seems
> totally doable, via a USB-linked device on the other end of an
> internet connection. You'd basically be controlling one process on the
> host computer, which would be real-time scanning whatever microfilm
> was in the USB-connected machine. Remote-control commands to move the
> film are just simple encode/decode stuff. It's akin to a modern piece
> of hifi gear with BlueTooth or WiFi capability, being controlled by an
> iPhone app. Why the remote microfilm reader doesn't exist probably is
> a combination of too small a market and too much resistence from
> copyright owners.
>

Regards
--
Don Cox
[log in to unmask]