Chris, this if course supports my thesis that digital is better than
microfilm.  You can make thousands of digital copies at no expense other
than clicking the duplicate selection in your menu.  It does not get run
through any machine - therefore no scratching, etc. - and you can print out
as many "original" copies as you want. You can change color to B&W and vice
versa at no cost.

You can control the horizontal. You can control the vertical.
You can roll the image. Make it flutter. You can change the focus to a soft
blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity....


- oh, wait, that last paragraph is the introduction to the original Outer
Limits, but you get my drift. :)
dr



> From: Chris Andrle <[log in to unmask]>
> Organization: Andrle.com
> Reply-To: "A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State
> history." <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:36:30 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: providing online
>
> I have to take issue with your statement that microfilm is a one-time
> expense. In my library, the microfilm collection (censuses, city
> directories, church records, and newspapers) has been ruined by running it
> through poorly maintained microfilm readers that scratched the film to the
> point that much of it is unusable. I'm assuming that microfilm masters exist
> somewhere and that it would not be necessary to film the (probably
> discarded) originals again, however, this particular library cannot even
> afford the cost of purchasing replacement microfilm. This microfilm
> collection has been around for a long time, and I'm sure that with proper
> storage and care it would have lasted longer, but just like books, microfilm
> can be damaged and does wear out eventually through use.
>
> Chris Andrle
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pullen, Sharon" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: providing online
>
>
>> The idea that digitally formatting something is a one-time cost is not
>> valid.  Digitization is currently too software/hardware dependent to be a
>> one-time expense. There are constant upgrades, migrations, etc. that
> become
>> necessary.  Microfilm, on the other hand is a one-time expense and can be
>> used as a basis for digitization, so as far as expense, it is still the
> most
>> cost-effective method of preservation.
>>
>> Sharon A. Pullen, CA
>> Suffolk County Archivist
>> Historical Documents Library
>> Office of the County Clerk
>> 310 Center Drive
>> Riverhead, NY 11901-3392
>>
>> Phone: 631-852-2015
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>