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But, with advances in technology what we use today will soon be out of
date, just like microfilms.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/