Why microfilm instead of of electronic preservation?  Well, there are a
few reasons:
  Microfilm is cheaper.  Therefore, it may be the best method to preserve
large amounts of material which will be used relatively infrequently.
  Microfilm lasts longer than any current electorinc preservation.
(Microfilm shiould easily last 100 years, while most electronic media
have lifetimes measured in decades.)  Agian, that lowers the effective
cost and also results in higher odds of permanent preservation since you
may have money now but you don't know if you will have money in 35 years
to save that CD-ROM...


  If you are talknig about items which will be accessed frequently, yes,
electronic media is better, but preservation programs tend to incude many
items which will never see frequent use.  And remember that you can
always scan microfilm to produce electronic versions as you need them.
And, yes, machines are available to automatically scan a whole reel page
by page, the equivalent of a document feeder for a photocopy machine.
Or you can hook a scanner up to a Xerox Docutech to produce hardcopy
directly,  the exmaple you all are most likely to have seen is probably
from UMI: dissertations.  (recent ones are produced this way and are way
better than the ones we used to produce.)
   Dan Freidus
   Science Editor; COmprehensive Dissertation Index
   University Microfilms (UMI), Box 56
   300 N. Zeeb Rd.
   Ann Arbor, MI 48106
   800-761-4700 x4172
   [log in to unmask]


On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Christopher Whittle wrote:
> Why are we still using an antiquated technology that creates more
> problems than it solves.  Microfilm is an optometrist's dream- it is a
> conspiracy to make people go blind.