 |
 |
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 copy"? Best wishes, George