[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rickety bridges to the past
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Rickety bridges to the past
- From: "J.S.FARLEY" <J.S.Farley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 08:59:43 +0100
- In-reply-to: <E0wR2wz-0007hRfirstname.lastname@example.org>
- Message-id: <199705131423.HAA15857@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I Apologise if I have annoyed people by getting on my high horse.
Recently I have been watching in horror as a museum (who shall remain
nameless as they might be lurking) has been digitising and destroying
glass plate negatives purely because the originals are on glass and
therefore heavy. The resulting image is deffinately worse than the
original. The media that is being transferred to is an optical sub-format
which is already on its way out. I have only managed to save about ten
glass plates which are now in my personal collection until the museum
develops a more responsible attitude.
I never said that microfilm is better than an original or better than
digitisation, far from it. The only good copy is the original, microfilm
is just the lesser of two evils at the moment. If Mr W.S. Peterson had
examined his copy of the Times on digital media, he would still have had a
tear visible, that is the lack of care of the technician not the problem
of the media. Newspaper companies are only interested in the content of
the material, not its aesthetic looks, therefore a page with a tear is of
no consequence to them.
All I am trying to say is that microfilm will always be more accessible than
digital because it doesn't require a machine interface (although they help).
By my experiments, Microforms last longer than digital, but neither are as
accurate a depiction as the original media which should be kept wether a
duplicate is made or not.
Thats it, I am extinguishing my flame thrower and going to repair some