The required format is TIFF 4 at the moment. PDFs are proprietary and are not currently endorsed by the State Archives in Washington. Elizabeth Fairfax -----Original Message----- From: Chris Flynn [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:46 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [RM] Cost comparisons Andrew, The letter of the law is quite deal. Unless things have changed (you might want to check this), The State of Wsahington requires that you use Acrobat 5 for imaging your records. I could be wrong, but I don't think the version rewuired under the WAC's exists. This could be quite the conundrum if this is still true. The principle behind imaging archival records and then disposing is fairly old. The difference should revolve around the intrinsic value of the record. If the value is based on the total volume of the records they may be elibible for disposal after archival imaging (check your state regs) If the record has intrisic value (declation of idependence, D.B. Cooper's court file, etc) you may want to hold on to the record after imaging. You might contact Paul Piper and see where ATOM is on this issue. You could also flip and film the image and scan the film (everone is happy except the finance people).ALARM is active in your area you pitch your issue to them as well. Good luck Chris Flynn -----Original Message----- From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Penta, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:03 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [RM] Cost comparisons Hello, I'm fairly new to the list, and this is my first inquiry posting. I have enjoyed reading and have learned much from what I have seen the list membership post, and I'm certain that I will be appreciative of any feedback I receive from this question. I am looking for cost comparisons, or a cost-benefit analysis comparing microfilming files rather than continuing to store paper in boxes. Specifically, a large department I work with has digitally scanned thousands of permanent retention official public records, but has not invested in producing preservation microfilm back-up for the scanned images. By law in the State of Washington, to be able to destroy the paper source documents of permanent files, the files must be filmed, regardless if thy are scanned (or you can go through a complex process to have your scanning system certified by the state, which would remove the requirement to microfilm). I'm thinking that it would be more economical (and less risky) to produce microfilm directly from the scanned digital images and destroy the paper files, than to continue to store an ever increasing volume of paper, and now I'm looking for information on the costs to strengthen my case. Andrew Penta Records Officer Records Management Division, Clark County General Services Dept. ext. 4009, or (360) 397-2191 e-mail: [log in to unmask] List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/06 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