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