There is a program called LaserFiche which takes a snapshot (scan) of a
document and displays it in original format. However, it makes it a live
document so you can search on any of the words.  Pretty neat program.
dr

> From: "Daniel H. Weiskotten" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
> history." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:06:03 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: microfilming, etc.
>
> Suzanne Etherington wrote:
>> Don't forget that it is possible to scan directly from microfilm - one
> doesn't need to try to hang on to paper copies of records in anticipation
> of scanning in the future.
>
>
> But, with advances in technology what we use today will soon be out of
> date, just like microfilms.  Having worked some with scanning from
> microfilms I can only say that it is quicker to process (especially with
> hugely expensive and fancy machines that you just let the film cycle
> through) but the quality is still worse than the imnage in the film, which
> is in turn worse than the original - simply because it is another
> generation away from the original.
>
> Even electronic scanning the of original is not for ever, just as many
> repositories have found with microflms.  What happens if the file is
> corrupted or lost or unreadable on the next generation of computers?  Do we
> go through every single file that we have and upgrade it to the latest
> technology so that it is safe and usable?  An attrition rate of one in a
> million lost or unreformattable files is unnaceptable for what we do.
>
> Also, just looking back at changes in scanning equipment and computer
> storage capabilities over the past ten years, it is clear that what we will
> be capable of in another ten years will make todays work look like it was
> done in the stone age.  I have at home a scanner that is four years old and
> its highest resolution is 200 dpi, I have used scanners that can go up to
> 1600 dpi (or was it 3200 dpi?), and it will be no time at all before they
> can do even better than that.  despite the wonderful resolution cabilities
> it was impossible to scan at any higher than 600 dpi because it took 3
> minutes to scan each image, took forever to load and view, and then only
> about 20 of them could fit on a single CD.  We will have to wait for better
> storage and reterival technology to come readily available if we are going
> to even use 600dpi.
>
> Do we want to be stuck with all those scans done at the once-magnificent
> 200 dpi or do we wait until technology makes the effort worthwile and final
> (and just when is it "good enough")?  Do we want to be stuck with files
> that are a couple KB when soon to be available hardware will make GB files
> the norm?
>
> It is a no-win situation and we will be faced with re-doing all that hard
> work in just a few short years simply because of the rapid changes in
> technology.  Then again, despite all that can be done with scanners today,
> and will be done in the future, it is all worthless if there is a power
> failure or if the computers on the fritz.
>
> Keep the originals around just so that we can be assured of meeting future
> technological needs for the simple matter that we have proven ourselves
> time and time again to be very short sighted - I think it is time we
> learned our lessons.
>
> Here's one of my projects still sitting on the drawing board after 15
> years, waiting for the right technology to come along:
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyccazen/MscLists/CRphotos95-14.html
>
> Dan W.
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~nyccazen/
>