Janie;

I used the 42x 'standard' reduction on 16mm microfilm for primarily 2 sided
(duplex) check filming.

We microfilmed large format docs using 35mm instead of 16mm because of the
ability to capture more information and create a more legible, reproducible
and scan-able image with the larger frame size.

A compressed image of a E size doc scanned at 300 dpi can reach 8 KB
Writing that to a frame approximately 1/4th the size of a 35mm frame  would
require a high resolution archive writer and still incur some image loss.

It all comes down to yours customer's needs.

What is the quality level of the digital image you have to work with?
Will the film be used only to view some information at a later date if the
digital is lost?
Will the film be scanned to a digital image and then later to be OCR'd for
data search?
Will there be a need to recreate a CAD drawing?

Unless you cut the large format image into sections and then print to
16mm I could not recommend 16mm archive microfilm at reduction greater than
24x.

Best Regards;

John
-- 
John R Glover
707-773-1257
[log in to unmask]
www.linkedin.com/in/johnrglover

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Janie Wait <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Need some input regarding large format document archive writing.  Typically
> we have always filmed large format and bound books on 35mm film at 18:1 or
> 21:1 reduction due to equipment restraints.  Now, with the ability to burn
> images directly to film we have the option of burning these on 16mm film at
> 42:1 reduction, which is still a standard ratio with standard lenses on the
> retrieval equipment.
>
> The burning question is at what lose of quality?
>
> My thoughts are that the scans are only at 300 DPI to begin with, we will
> probably only ever come back to a digital image and the technology is so
> different that we may not have any significant loss of quality by going to
> a
> higher ratio.
>
> If you have any direct experience or knowledge about these processes please
> let me know.  If it turns out we collectively have no previous information
> regarding this issue then I will take it upon myself to directly test out
> the situation...but I would like to think I am not the first to try saving
> some significant money for my clients this way!
>
>
>
> Janie Wait, CRM, MBA
> President
> Director of Marketing
> Intermountain Record Center, Inc
> 3765 Airport Parkway, Casper, WY 82604
> PO Box 2770, Mills, WY 82644
>  307-265-9553
>  307-237-8225
>  [log in to unmask]
>  WWW.intermountainrecords.com <http://www.intermountainrecords.com/>
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]