Steve Whitaker wrote:
<Microfilm is not cheap to reference information. I would also not
consider it cost-effective way to transmit information.>

Microfilm, as an active records technology, lost its cost effectiveness
with the advent of PCs on every desk and inexpensive, large capacity
drives.  I started my RIM career in microfilm, back when it was THE
technology threat to traditional RM.  There was always a need to produce
the microfilm according to ANSI standards to meet longevity needs.
There was also a need to follow fairly strict quality requirements in
order to have readable, useable images.  Those two issues became more
important as electronic media became the more cost effective method of
record distribution and access.  Good quality images on microfilm
meeting LE 500 (life expectancy of 500 years) requirements can easily be
converted to readable, useable electronic images.  But microfilm is
still a cost viable method of longevity preservation and vital records
backup.  Especially for records still kept and used in paper form.  I no
longer recommend microfilm for active distribution and access, except
perhaps COM (computer output microfilm or microfiche) in place of
printed reports, primarily because most of the equipment and supplies
for good microfilm CAR (computer assisted retrieval) systems is
difficult to purchase in this day and age.  See....technological
obsolescence happens even to microfilm.

Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, FAI)
Records Manager
Information Technology Division
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
Newport News, VA
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance