>Gerry's examples, they're talking about "archival film"... copies that
are
>stored away from normal use and only referenced
>on occasion and stored in conditions designed to protect the longevity.
Actually in my case these were project files that were in daily use.
Certainly not every file was pulled for research every day and some may
have only been pulled a few times in the last couple of decades but
these were aperture cards available for routine daily use. Use by staff
and public - not archivists wearing cotton gloves <grin>.
The silver masters were/are kept by our city's main records management
office (I work for one department of a municipal government) for
protection/storage. In the past 30 years I don't think we had to replace
more than a couple of dozen aperture cards due to deterioration due to
use (scratches, crumpling, etc.) and have replaced none simply due to
aging.
>OKAY... so here's the question. What was the driver to make the
decision to convert all of this film?
>Was it a need for more routine access to the contents on a regular
basis and an enhanced method for access to the content? >Or did
something else drive the decision?
We started implementing a document imaging/management system a few years
ago for two main reasons: lack of shelf space for paper and to make
project files more easily available to multiple users in multiple
locations. Originally we were not going to scan our film into the system
but as we did not want to end up with a mixed system (some physical/
some digital) and we needed to free up the space taken by the microfilm
cabinets we pursued the film scanning.
>When it was made, was consideration given to the retention period
required
>for the content, and did someone make a conscious decision to destroy
the film
>rather than retain it in storage as a "deep backup" to the digital
images?
In my case almost all these files are considered permanent records and
the original silver will be kept by the main records management group
forever +10 years <grin>. We trashed the our diazo film after final QC
on the scanning of same had been completed.
>How is budgeting being handled to pay for the cost of periodic
migration and validation
>of the digital images over time to meet retention?
Good question, and I don't have an answer on that but let me give a
couple of comments:
We are operating on an enterprise document imaging/management system so
our costs are based upon the fees charged by our IT folks so I can't say
that is broken down as a constituent of that annual fee. I'll have to
ask about that and see what I can find out.
As far as migration I don't see that any future migration of our image
files is likely to be a real concern. Certainly, I do not buy into the
"migration of digital images every 3-5 years". I'm not sure I understand
the basis for such a statement.
We use TIFF files and I expect the TIFF format to live forever + 10
years <grin>. If we were using some vendors proprietary file format that
would worry me but as we are using a widespread international standard
file format I sleep ok. I assume that at some point there may be the
development of a digital format that offers many advantages over TIFF
and if/when it becomes an internationally accepted standard there may be
a desire to convert existing data to that - at that time I would expect
that conversion from TIFF to whatever would be a minor endeavor and a
minor budgetary expense. Of course my vision of the future could be very
wrong and not only will we not all be driving hover cars and viewing
files on holographic displays but such file conversion could cost an arm
and a leg.
To me the important distinction is using a standard file format
independent of any specific hardware platform or device. If all my data
was stored on 8" floppys in some long forgotten vendors format
however...
Validation could be a concern. Bit rot does occasionally happen - as to
whether that would completely corrupt an image file or just cause random
pixel dropin/dropouts I do not know. In any case we will still have the
archival silver for microfilmed items and stored paper for
non-microfilmed items. I can't honestly say that we (does anyone?) have
a process in place to view/verify every digital image once every xx
years. I do not know if a routine process of running checksum
validations during the wee hours of the morning to try and identify any
corrupted files would be a worthwile effort (any comments anyone has on
that matter would be appreciated!!)
I would say that validation of film stuck away in some archival storage
facility may be a concern also. Does anyone periodically validate their
decades old stored away microfilm? I know we ASSUME that under proper
storage conditions film will not deteriorate for a good long while but
you never know when some file warehouse worker might be a little
careless with their lunchtime PB&J and drop some apricot preserves into
a box of film. Plus, I doubt that most people store their film or other
physical files in truly state of the art climate controlled, chemical
and vermin free environments.
>....it's hard to understand how a public entity could make the decision
>to convert microfilm to digital unless there was an analysis performed
>that supported the savings versus cost over the retention period
associated with the content.
Is it really hard to imagine any government entity doing something
without the benefit of a proper analysis beforehand <grin>?
As mentioned above our diazo film was copies of silver masters used for
daily file research. We retained the silver film. The cost to scan film
into the system was deemed reasonable given the goals of the project.
>Given the need for computer equipment for the content to reside on,
>the communications requirements for transmitting rather large files,
>the processing power to search the repository, the displays to read
>the converted images, the time to index the content when converted,
>the QC for the images and the converted images on each generation over
>the future, and the cost to upgrade systems to avoid obsolescence and
media degradation...
>at minimum, I would think retaining the film as a backup would have
been cost effective.
All of our staff already have desktop pc's supported by a netwoking
infrastructure designed to handle many varied business apps. As we were
already implementing a document imaging/management system the desire to
have all our files available electronically so they could be readily
accessed by folks in various locations made the cost worthwile. Again,
in my case what we disposed of were only diazo copies of the silve
masters so in effect we do have that backup.
>No knock on you or your organization Gerry, just trying to gain an
>understanding of what was involved in making the decision.
Thank you for your comments and questions Larry. Unlike most people on
the list I am not a records management professional. I only became
involved with my departments records management function (apart from
being a user of our files for many decades) about a year ago. I am
primarily a "computer guy" who was re-assigned to help get our document
imaging program back on track and provide some tech support/supervision
for our departmental records management function so I have been having
to learn and deal with a lot of things outside of my normal pc geek
realm. The RECMGMT list has been quite useful in that regard.
Gerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Larry Medina
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WAS: COM Fiche Longevity, NOW: Cost to support
On 1/29/07, Gerry McFatridge <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> With proper care and storage diazo film should last 100 years or more
> (my bet would be more).
Agreed, and lots of folks may or may not know how to properly care for
and store the film. Jesse had made a comment earlier about the lifespan
of film in normal use rotation and cost to replace it, but I think in
Sandy and Gerry's examples, they're talking about "archival film"...
copies that are stored away from normal use and only referenced on
occasion and stored in conditions designed to protect the longevity.
Our diazo film only goes back 30 years or so and it looks as good as the
> day we got it.
Same was true for much of the diazo fiche I was routinely managing in
the past. Most of what I'm involved with now is silver, and stored in a
manner designed to achieve a minimum of 100 years. We do have some
diazo, but most of what's on it are only 25 year records, so I'm not too
concerned about that period of time being compromised.
Not that we have any film anymore since we have been
> converting everything to digital in the past few years and finally
> finished that effort last summer.
OKAY... so here's the question. What was the driver to make the
decision to convert all of this film? Was it a need for more routine
access to the contents on a regular basis and an enhanced method for
access to the content? Or did something else drive the decision?
When it was made, was consideration given to the retention period
required for the content, and did someone make a conscious decision to
destroy the film rather than retain it in storage as a "deep backup" to
the digital images?
How is budgeting being handled to pay for the cost of periodic migration
and validation of the digital images over time to meet retention?
Thinking back to the 1999 report posted a week or so ago and the
comment:
"Plan and budget for migration of digital images every 3-5 years, with
the cost equivalent to 50-100% of the costs associated with the original
imaging project."
....it's hard to understand how a public entity could make the decision
to convert microfilm to digital unless there was an analysis performed
that supported the savings versus cost over the retention period
associated with the content.
Given the need for computer equipment for the content to reside on, the
communications requirements for transmitting rather large files, the
processing power to search the repository, the displays to read the
converted images, the time to index the content when converted, the QC
for the images and the converted images on each generation over the
future, and the cost to upgrade systems to avoid obsolescence and media
degradation...
at minimum, I would think retaining the film as a backup would have been
cost effective.
No knock on you or your organization Gerry, just trying to gain an
understanding of what was involved in making the decision.
Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
