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 But, with advances in technology what we use today will soon be out of date, just like microfilms.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