Microlink Messages
January 2000 to May 2000

Message #98 Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Message #97 Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera
Message #96 Subject: RE: Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections
Message #95Subject: RE: hybrid microfilm cameras/scanners
Message #94 Deleted
Message #93 Subject: hybrid microfilm cameras/scanners
Message #92 Subject: Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections
Message #91 Subject: Microfilming equipment available
Message #90 Subject: Re: Resolution Targets...
Message #89 Subject: Resolution targets
Message #88 Subject: Second hand Kodak MRD camera
Message #87 Subject: Re: Image File Formats
Message #86 Subject: Re: Image File Formats
Message #85 Subject: Image File Formats
Message #84 Subject: RE: digitisation of childrens books - national library of the Netherlands
Message #83 Subject: RE : digitisation of childrens books - national library of theNetherlands
Message #82 Subject: News for Microfilm targeteers!
Message #81 Subject: RE: Resolution
Message #80 Subject: Resolution
Message #79 Subject: Australian example of hybrid project
Message #78 Subject: RE: Coloured tinges on microfilms
Message #77 Subject: Re: camera manuals, wow!
Message #76 Subject: : RE: Camera manuals
Message #75 Subject: RE: Camera manuals
Message #74 Subject: Re: Camera manuals
Message #73 Subject: Re: Camera manuals
Message #72 Subject: Camera manuals
Message #71 Subject: Re: Coloured tinges on microfilms
Message #70 Subject: Re: Coloured tinges on microfilms
Message #69Subject: Re: Microfilming
Message #68Subject: Re: Film winders and light boxes
Message #67Subject: Coloured tinges on microfilm
Message #66Subject: Re: Microfilming and destroying records
Message #65Subject: Re: Microfilming
Message #64Subject: Microfilming
Message #63Subject: Re: Film winders and light boxes
Message #62Subject: Microfilming Public Records
Message #61Subject: Film winders and light boxes
Message #60Subject: address change
Message #59Subject: Web Site
Message #58Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier
Message #57Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier
Message #56Subject: RE: vesicular film/Modulex
Message #55Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier
Message #54Subject: Vesicular versus Silver Halide
Message #53Subject: RE: vesicular film/Modulex
Message #52Subject: RE: vesicular film/Modulex
Message #51Subject: RE: vesicular film/Modulex
Message #50Subject: RE: vesicular film/Modulex
Message #49Subject: QC Microfilm - FYscope!
Message #48Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners
Message #47Subject: Systems cleaner
Message #46Subject: RE: Rotary use
Message #45Subject: FW: Rotary clubs
Message #44Subject: Production Goals
Message #43Subject: Resolution charts
Message #42Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners
Message #41Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners
Message #40Subject: Commercial feasibility of putting scanned film on line
Message #39Subject: Newsplan Project Director
Message #38Subject: Sourcing for good quality resolution charts
Message #37Subject: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners
Message #36Subject: Production Standards and colour
Message #35Subject: processing and scanning colour microfilm
Message #34Subject: Scottish Newspapers Microfilming Unit
Message #33Subject: RE: Production Goals
Message #32Subject: RE: Production Goals
Message #31Subject: Scanning & microfilming
Message #30Subject: Deleted
Message #29Subject: Production Goals
Message #28Subject: Zeutschel Omniscan 7000 scanner
Message #27Subject: RE: Zeutschel hybrid microfilm camera/scanner
Message #26Subject: RE: Microfilming specifications
Message #25Subject: Microfilming specifications
Message #24Subject: Film Cleaning Solvent
Message #23Subject: Zeutschel hybrid microfilm camera/scanner
Message #22Subject: RE: Film cleaner
Message #21Subject: RE: Film cleaner
Message #20Subject: RE: Film cleaner
Message #19 Subject: Film cleaner
Message #18 Subject: Microfilm storage and vacuum sealing
Message #17 Subject: Vacuum Sealing
Message #16 Subject: RE: Vacuum Packing
Message #15 Subject: Lease of cold storage space
Message #14 Subject: Vacuum Packing
Message #13 Subject: Computer Output Microfiche
Message #12 Subject: RE; FW: Kodak systems cleaner
Message #11 Subject: RE: A request for help/info
Message #10 Subject: A request for hlep/info
Message #9 Subject: Re: kodak systems cleaner
Message #8 Subject: FW: kodak systems cleaner
Message #7 Subject: kodak systems cleaner
Message #6 Subject: MICROLINK


Message #98

Date: May 11 2000 10:24:05 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com>
Subject: RE: portable 16mm microfilm camera

While your reasons for having to create microfiche are entirely valid please be aware of the fact that microfiche is not generally acknowledged as an acceptable format within the preservation microfilming community. The primary reason is the higher reduction ratios used however there are many other technical reasons.

Good luck and regards,

Robert Mottice


Message #97

Date: May 10 2000 20:46:31 EDT
From: Pacific Manuscripts Bureau <pambu@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: portable 16mm microfilm camera

Dear Listmembers,

The Pacific Manuscripts Bureau is preparing for a project in Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands, making preservation microfilm copies of the archives of the Catholic Diocese of Taiohae.

The Bishop, Mgr Chevalier, has insisted, with reason, that the Bureau provide microfiche copies of the documents to the Diocese, not microfilm, as there is no equipment to read microfilm in Nukuhiva. However microfiche can only be produced from 16mm film and the Bureau only has 35mm microfilming equipment. The Hirakawa 16mm camera head is interchangeable with the Bureau's Hirakawa 35mm portable microfilming baseboard and mounting arm, but the cost of a new HK16 camera is prohibitive for a one-off project (AU$5,670/ JPY358,000).

Does any reader know of a Hirakawa 16mm camera head which the Bureau may borrow or hire? Tony Wheeler from Pascoes says that the Hirakawa portable microfilm cameras were sometimes marketed under the brand name "Canon" or "Gordon" (Allan E. Gordon).

Regards,

Ewan Maidment
PMB Executive Officer
Pacific Manuscripts Bureau
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200
Australia

Tel: (612) 6249 2521
Fax: (612) 6249 0198
URL: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pambu/


Message #96

From: Mottice, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'Linkmicro@listbot.com'; 'Hilary Berthon'
Subject: RE: Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections

Significant problems are being encountered "in the states" with old acetate masters that were not stored properly. We are using the blue A&D acid sensing strips (produced by the Image Permanence Institute) to quantify the extent of acidification. When the strips indicate a certain degree of acidification, we duplicate the deteriorating masters onto polyester based Kodak Direct Duplicating film if it has not already been done. Deteriorating masters should be isolated from ones that have not already begun to acidify. With the acidification process being autocatalytic, the acidic fumes from the "bad" rolls will trigger chemical breakdown in "good" rolls.

Prior to refrigerating the deteriorating masters, they should be thoroughly aerated by slowly unwinding (in a stiff breeze) to permit the some of the hydrogen acetate (acetic acid) fumes to escape. On a personal note...I would not discard deteriorating masters even after they've begun to warp and ripple. As long as they can be read with an eye loupe, they still have value.

Good Luck,

Robert Mottice


Message #95

Date: May 10 2000 07:04:08 EDT
From: "Flatman, Gary" <gary.flatman@pro.gov.uk
Subject: RE: hybrid microfilm cameras/scanners

GKL are developing just such a camera. They can be contacted at:www.gklarchive.co.uk.

Regards

Gary Flatman
Public Record Office
Kew
Surrey
UK

Gary.flatman@pro.gov.uk


Message #94

Repeat of Message #96


Message #93

Date: May 09 2000 12:26:04 EDT
From: Julie Bullock <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us
Subject: hybrid microfilm cameras/scanners

First, I apologize to list members who receive this as a cross-posting.

I would very much like to know if there would be a manufacturer of a 35mm microfilm camera/scanner other than the Zeutschel. I know that Kodak makes a 16mm one, but I have to be able to prove that the Zeutschel is unique before initiating a purchase order. Local vendors I polled did not know of another similar product, but they also had not heard about the Zeutschel hybrid camera/scanner, which makes me cautious. If anyone could give me any additional information about the current state of the market I would be most grateful.

Sincerely,

Julie Bullock
Archival Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History
jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us


Message #92

Date: May 04 2000 00:19:12 EDT
From: Hilary Berthon <hberthon@nla.gov.au
Subject: Deteriorating Cellulose Acetate Collections

Dear Listmembers,

The National Library of Australia (NLA) has embarked on a project to develop recommendations for dealing with deteriorating cellulose acetate collections, including sound, motion picture, negatives and microfilm. Our project web site is at: http://www.nla.gov.au/preserve/ca.html.

Cellulose acetate deterioration, known as the vinegar syndrome, has been known for some time to affect collections within libraries and archives. The project will collate information about various strategies for dealing with deteriorating collections, and will attempt to scope the extent of the problem within Australia.

We would like to hear from individuals about the extent of cellulose acetate deterioration within their collections, their experiences in dealing with this problem, and examine strategies being implemented by institutions to deal with both large and small collections.

If you would like to comment off-line, or for further information about the project, please contact me by email or telephone.

Angeletta Leggio

National & International Preservation Activities
National Library of Australia

Tel: + 61 2 6262 1223
Fax:+ 61 2 6257 1703
E-mail: aleggio@nla.gov.au


Message #91

Date: May 03 2000 23:50:10 EDT
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Microfilming equipment available

William Sheriff has acquired some microfilming equipment while cleaning out a warehouse formerly occupied by Union Carbide. He thought someone in the Library/Archives field might have a use for it - especially some one in the USA.

William has:

1 3M Model 261 Duplifiche Printer

1 3M Model 262 Duplifiche Developer

1 3M model 3401 Wide Document Cartridge Microfilm Camera with rolling table and cover

Interested parties should contact William Sheriff direct:

William Sheriff wms@platorowest.com 970-385-5833

The equipment is currently located in Durango, CO., USA

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia


Message #90

Date: Apr 17 2000 18:22:03 EDT
From: Paul Montgomery apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: Re: Resolution Targets...

David Adams,

FYeye, I'll tag along your message and respond in its sequence.

The AIIM Scanner Test Chart #2 is an 8"x11" PAPER printed document that A&P makes for them. It contains various alpha samples & 65-100 line mesh (screen) halftones in 17 gradations from 5% to solid. Ink on paper, not true densities).

(Remember that any image paper also 'moves around' with heat and humidity).

The RIT 'Alphanumeric Test Object' is a misnomer on the 'Guidlines'. It actually is the RIT 'Ink Gamut' chart that contains half-inch circles of the entire process color gamut (dozens of .5" color circles) on one 8.5"xll" PAPER printed page (copyrighted by Rochester Institute of Technology).

The IEEE chart is a 8.5"x11" B&W copyrighted photo of elements germain to testing scanners.

These ingredients combine in ANSI/AIIM's MS44-1988 (R1993) as Catalog No. MS44 -

'Recommended Practice for QC of Image Scanners.' MS44 costs @ $39. Targets are sold separately as Cat. No. X440 @ $75. (1988 cost figures).

A&P's PM-189 Scanner Test Target contains elements of AIIM's #2 & IEEE and MORE items on ONE 8.5"x11" PHOTO chart. ('Target' & 'chart' names are used interchangably, although properly, a target is an element of a chart). We provide the RIT one FREE. Our cost is $100 for both 'standard' & chart(s). See our web site for a 'picture' & explanation of the target(s), along with rationale about the differences with AIIM's offering. (IEEE looks somewhat like ours). We also will mail anyone the multi-page PM-189 'standard', if you email us your address! (David, we can't open your web site, so please email your address.

Now, to answer your questions.

A standard microfilm resolution target is made for MICROFILM testing, not scanner testing. If one was NOT used in earlier microfilming, you have to live with the image on the film to be digitized. Scanner targets act as a 'benchmark' to enable you to 'tweak' your scanners for optimum performance.

Use which ever scanner target you choose as described above, bearing in mind that AIIM is only 8.5" x 11". PM-189 is available in sizes to 36" x 48" as shown on our web site. (Dreamworks just bought everything in our arsenal)! Size used depends on what 'fits' your scanner...

PM-189 was (uncleverly) named after the date we introduced it in January.1989. We sell lots of them.

They can be sourced 'down under' simply by ordering direct, unless a dealer wishes to handle them. We don't have a dealer there (yet) and I'm quite sure AIIM sells only direct.

It's your choice to include a greyscale stepwedge (density scale). Some scanners give greyscale readings. But the definitive way is to know exactly what density the machine is scanning (like dpi readings) vs depending on manufacturers' claims. We also have 'certified' density scales. Most PM-189 buyers are no longer ordering add-on density scales. Our sound reason for selling them at all is described on our web site. We do sell many dozens of them to Scanner manufacturers in Tiawan - where nearly all scanner elements are made!

Please email back any further questions, and thanks for asking!

Paul

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

At the National Library we are beginning to get more involved with hybrid microfilm/scanning programms and I wanted to see what should be done in regard to using resolution targets.

I read in the publication "Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming in Australia & New Zealand" the mention of test targets (AIIM Scanner Test Chart #2, RIT Alphanumeric Test Object and IEEE Std 167A-1995 targets)

What would be of help is if anyone could answer these questions;

Is a standard microfilm resolution target sufficient if a film is to be digitised?

What scanner target should be used (and size)?

What scanner targets others are using?

If they can be sourced in Australia/NZ?

(I noticed in the US, one supplier 'A&T International' promote a target called PM-189 and stated on their web site;

"The basic PM-189 is an 8.5"X11" (A-size) test chart containing highly improved versions of all the specified resolution images recommended by the ANSI/AIIM MS44-1988 standard" they also offer the option of a greyscale step wedge on the target)

Should a greyscale step wedge also be included in the target?

David Adams

Team Leader Copying Services
National Library of New Zealand

+64 4 4743151

Visit "Timeframes" New Zealands leading source of heritage images http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/

Paul Montgomery EIN 41-1436456

A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788
577 Locust Street Fax: 715-262-3823
Prescott, WI 54021
http://www.pressenter.com/~apintl


Message #89

Date: Apr 16 2000 20:09:54 EDT
From: "David Adams" <David.Adams@natlib.govt.nz
Subject: Resolution targets

At the national Library we are beginning to get more involved with hybrid microfilm/scanning programms and I wanted to see what should be done in regard to using resolution targets.

I read in the publication "Guidelines for Preservation Microfilming in Australia & New Zealand" the mention of test targets (AIIM Scanner Test Chart #2, RIT Alphanumeric Test Object and IEEE Std 167A-1995 targets)

What would be of help is if anyone could answer these questions;

Is a standard microfilm resolution target sufficient if a film is to be digitised?

What scanner target should be used (and size)?

What scanner targets others are using?

If they can be sourced in Australia/NZ?

(I noticed in the US, one supplier 'A&T International' promote a target called PM-189 and stated on their web site;

"The basic PM-189 is an 8.5"X11" (A-size) test chart containing highly improved versions of all the specified resolution images recommended by the ANSI/AIIM MS44-1988 standard" they also offer the option of a greyscale step wedge on the target)

Should a greyscale step wedge also be included in the target?

David Adams

Team Leader Copying Services
National Library of New Zealand
+64 4 4743151

Visit "Timeframes" New Zealands leading source of heritage images http://timeframes.natlib.govt.nz/


Message #88

Date: Apr 14 2000 03:46:20 EDT
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Second hand Kodak MRD camera

The State Library of South Australia is currently on the look out for a second-hand Kodak MRD 35mm camera in top working condition.

If any organisation (preferably within the Australasian region) has one for sale, could you please contact me direct c/- Image Services at the State Library of South Australia.

Thanks in anticipation.

Heather Brown

Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
AUSTRALIA

Ph: (61 8) 82077317
Fax: (61 8) 82077274
Email: heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #87

Date: Apr 13 2000 12:37:00 EDT
From: Doug Jones <modmicro@erols.com
Subject: Re: Image File Formats

GarciaS@ebrd.com wrote:

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

Dear colleagues

In the context of a hybrid microfilm/scanning programme what are the findings and recommendations of list members for:

Question #1 -- 1) The most suitable image file format to use for scanned black and white documents

Answer: Most widely used image file format for bitonal (B&W) is CCITT Group 4 TIFF. If you need to capture grayscale information, JPEG is the format of choice.

Question #2) -- The optimum resolution.

Answer: For bitonal images, standard scanning resolution settings used are 200, 240 or 300dpi. Other resolutions may be advisable under certain conditions, but the above settings are used for the lion's share of projects we do. If you intend to OCR the document images, 300dpi usually delivers a more accurate end product, but not always! I've occasionally seen the same images scanned at 200dpi yield better OCR results than the same docs scanned at 300. Weird, but true.

Question #3) -- Not asked, but could be pertinent.

From an archival standpoint, the respective lifespans of CD-R and CD-ROM media types are not known with any real certainty. Even Kodak, whose CD materials are at least par with the world's best, are not willing to issue any guarantee on the longevity of their CD media. You may want to consider a dual-modality approach of your documents if long-term archiving is one of your goals. We frequently use both digital (CD or MO) and analog (microform) media. This technique offers the accessibility and portability of digital documents, along with the stability of up to a 500-year lifespan of microform. We think this offers the most flexible and secure document archive available.

Doug Jones

Modern Micro Imaging
Washington, DC

703.534.1025

We are concerned to minimise the issues of data-migration to give the image files a long life as a retrieval medium. In addition we want to ensure that the format selected should be as widely useable with other software in the organisation which has a largely Microsoft commercial I.T. environment.

Many thanks

Soraya Garcia-Merino

Records Management Assistant
Records Management & Archives Unit
EBRD
garcias@ebrd.com


Message #86

Date: Apr 13 2000 10:13:07 EDT
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: Re: Image File Formats

Soraya,

Relative to your q.2 Optimum Resolution:

Get info about our PM-189 Scanner Resolution target with 26 elements to 'tweak' scanners to optimize resolution. It's been the benchmark for 'PC World USA' semi-annual scanner quality and comparison tests for 10 years. The March, 2000 issue of 'PC World Brazil' again used PM-189 as the test object for a comparison of a dozen scanners.

Paul

Paul Montgomery
EIN 41-1436456
577 Locust Street
Prescott, WI 54021
A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788
Fax: 715-262-3823
http://www.pressenter.com/~apintl


Message #85

Date: Apr 13 2000 08:20:31 EDT
From: GarciaS@ebrd.com
Subject: Image File Formats

Dear colleagues

In the context of a hybrid microfilm/scanning programme what are the findings and recommendations of list members for:

1) The most suitable image file format to use for scanned black and white documents

2) The optimum resolution.

We are concerned to minimise the issues of data-migration to give the image files a long life as a retrieval medium. In addition we want to ensure that the format selected should be as widely useable with other software in the organisation which has a largely Microsoft commercial I.T. environment.

Many thanks

Soraya Garcia-Merino

Records Management Assistant
Records Management & Archives Unit
EBRD
garcias@ebrd.com


Message #84

Date: Apr 07 2000 09:56:38 EDT
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: digitisation of childrens books - national library of the Netherlands

Can't offer any solutions but am interested in knowing...were these color microforms published by Xerox Corporation (UMI) in the 1970's? I believe their product was referred to as Xedia. If these are from Xerox, I am interested in knowing how well the cyan dye is holding up. Many early color products have turned completely red because of cyan dye fading.

Robert Mottice


Message #83

Date: Apr 07 2000 03:00:23 EDT
From: "Robert van der Zwan" <Robert.vanderZwan@kb.nl
Subject: digitisation of childrens books - national library of theNetherlands

**Apologies for cross posting**

The National Library of the Netherlands is undertaking project involving the digitisation of childrens books from color microfilm. This project is part of

the national preservation programme of library material Metamorfoze http://www.kb.nl/metamorfoze/

Our tests sofar with digitisation indicate that the quality of digital images of the textual parts of the books are satisfactory whereas the quality of the images is excellent. Text and images are often mixed on the page and the text is often printed in a color instead of black.

We are seeking to improve the quality of the textual parts. We would be interested to hear from similar projects and share our experiences. Please contact me directly (robert.vanderzwan@kb.nl) or via the list.

Regards,

Robert van der Zwan
Digitisation coordinator
National Library of the Netherlands
Phone 00-31-70-3140635
E-mail robert.vanderzwan@kb.nl


Message #82

Date: Apr 06 2000 12:04:38 EDT
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: News for Microfilm targeteers!

NOT a commercial!

Available now from A&P are specialty microfilm test targets on a resin coat (RC) material called 'HQ'. These field-tested, High Quality photo targets yield a reported two-higher 'line pair' reading when microfilmed!

Many photo material manufacturers have quit making resin coated paper, narrowing the availability of substrates that will give microfilmers the quality they demand. 'HQ' material has the desired reflectivity, gloss and brightness to produce sharper line definition and higher 'line pair' readings.

Member A&P is working with AIIM's C-10 Quality Committee to resolve the quality issue as it relates to microfilm reproduction of targets . Unsatisfactory 'line pair' fall-off occurs. Reflectivity, gloss, brightness and exposure are pinpointed as contributing to the the problem.

Tests of available substrates are underway and the topic is high on the C-10 agenda at the upcoming AIIM Show. Results won't be available immediately. Some test material is coated film, like defunct Cronopaque. The Committee's aim is to redefine standards for target materials and their microfilming.

In the meantime A&P sees newly available 'HQ' substrate as a 'bird in the hand' for perfectionists in the microfilm community!

Paul Montgomery

A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788

577 Locust Street Fax: 715-262-3823

Prescott, WI 54021 http://www.pressenter.com/~apintl


Message #81

Date: Mar 30 2000 09:58:49 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Resolution

This stuff sounds too good to be true. It also sounds like the liquid contained in an amber colored bottle on the top shelf of the supply cage at Rochester Institute of Technology labeled "Stan's Focusing Solution". It was placed there as a spoof for the freshmen photographic students. Some fell for it...most didn't.

Seriously, I would like to learn more about the product. I am well aware of several intensification formulas but the grain alteration is new to me. Enhancing edge characteristics of text and lines by increasing contrast will, indeed, produce a better looking resolution chart.

Tell us more!

Robert Mottice


Message #80

Date: Mar 27 2000 01:46:14 EST
From: "GIDEON ROLLEX" <archivegraphics@hotmail.com
Subject: Resolution

Does anyone know of an alternative product to the 'optical intensifying system' from O.I.S. Ltd, as I hear that the manufacture is soon to be phased out.

The product is supplied in a 25lt two pack kits only. Processed microfilm is passed through the solution with an immersion time of 2 minutes at a temperature of 30? (both fairly critical)

The result is a clearly perceived improvement in clarity (resolution) and contrast. This is achieved by chemically modifying the grain structure in the emulsion.

The process leaves a marked blue colour in exposed areas on the film, this is part of the image reclamation process. However, O.I.S. state that this does not effect long term life expectancy. Tests carried out by one of our respected, learned institutions C.D.G.R.A. indicate that resolution can be improved by around two patterns.

The process has great benefits for improving film from rotary cameras where resolution may not be great, and older film that was shot on cameras that did not have the performance of our modern optical systems.

Our supply of this product will not last past a few months and we seek a similar product.

Sincerely

Gideon Rollex

Conservator


Message #79

Date: Mar 23 2000 21:50:52 EST
From: Brown.Heather@slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Australian example of hybrid project

The following announcement is an example of an Australian project integrating microfilming and digital conversion.

Message cross-posted with permission from Ross Coleman. <collm@mail.usyd.edu.au

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
Ph: (+ 61 8) 82077317
Fax: (+ 61 8) 82077274
Email: heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au

**************************************************************************

Announcing - Digital access to Australian publications, 1840-45

Periodicals and novels published in Australia during the period 1840-45 are now freely accessible online via the World Wide Web.

These works - digitised as part of the ARC funded Australian Cooperative Digitisation Project 1840-45 - provide a record of a seminal period in the development of Australian colonial culture.

The project has been a collaborative initiative between the University of Sydney Library, the National Library of Australia and the State Library of New South Wales. The project sought to preserve and provide enhanced access to these scarce works through an integrated method of microfilming and digital conversion. The partners investigated and developed - in conjunction with industry contractors - a production process which would enable this work to be carried out as seamlessly and effectively as possible. The need to address and test production specifications with a goal of generating the highest quality images prolonged the project beyond initial planning dates. More information about the project is available through the Project website at http://www.nla.gov.au/acdp/

Periodical publications and novels are accessible by following the links listed below, or directly through records in Kinetica, the national bibliographic database. Where necessary specific help instructions are available at each site, and feedback can be sent using the facilities provided.

1) Australian Periodical Publications 1840-1845 http://www.nla.gov.au/ferg/

54 titles are currently accessible with more to be added in the near future. The project will also be providing searchable indexes and table of contents where they have been published as part of the periodical, and is testing OCR (Optical Character Recognition) conversion of the text of some periodicals as a means of providing a form of keyword access.

The titles are provided in PDF (Portable Document Format) to facilitate zooming, browsing, printing and cutting and pasting. Instructions on use of PDF are provided at the site

LIST OF TITLES

--------------

2) Novels, 1840-45

http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/acdp/

The four 1840-45 novels provided the genesis of the Australian Text Database at SETIS, the Scholarly Text and Image Service at the University of Sydney Library. Currently this collection includes over 150 fully searchable Australian literary, historical and scientific texts, which are accessible at http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/oztexts/

NOVELS, 1840-45

Ross Coleman
Collection Management Librarian
University of Sydney Library
University of Sydney. NSW 2006
Australia.
email: r.coleman@library.usyd.edu.au
phone: +61 02 9351 3352
fax: +61 02 9351 7305


Message #78

Date: Mar 23 2000 13:09:34 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Coloured tinges on microfilms

Joe,

I've been out of the office for a few days. Just returned to find a flurry of activity on residual dyes in processed film stock and feel compelled to put in my two cents worth of rambling. There are basically two dyes contained in microfilm. One is a sensitizing dye which increases the films sensitivity to certain wavelengths or colors of light (usally red). The other dye is an anti-halation (AHU) dye which prevents the imaged light from bouncing around inside the film base. It improves resolution by preventing ghost images of characters, etc.

As Andy Fenton points out, fresh fixer, free of excessive by-products such as bromides, chlorides, iodides, sulfates, sulfides and gelatin in conjunction with an adequate water wash are key to producing totally color free films.

Robert Mottice


Message #77

Date: Mar 23 2000 11:16:57 EST
From: Cheryl Coovert <clcoov0@pop.uky.edu
Subject: Re: camera manuals, wow!

Thank you to everyone who replied to my original posting. You'll be hearing from me soon if you have not already received a reply. What a great list!


Message #76

Date: Mar 23 2000 09:04:12 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Camera manuals

Cheryl,

We have an original of the MRD Series dated 1971. This is titled just like the one mentioned by Andy Fenton.

Our manual for the MRG is a rather poor copy and dated 1983. We are located in Ann Arbor, Michigan...just six driving hours north of you on I-75

Robert Mottice


Message #75

Date: Mar 23 2000 08:13:06 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Camera manuals

I believe we have all those documents here at University Microfilms. I will check and get back to you.

Robert Mottice


Message #74

Date: Mar 22 2000 16:56:11 EST
From: CLoretto@slv.vic.gov.au
Subject: Re: Camera manuals

We have an "Instructions for the Recordak Microfile Camera; Commercial Model MRD-2E" booklet.

Date of publication unknown. 28 pages.

Contents: Specifications, Installation, Operation, Maintenance, Accessories, Service Parts.

Not exactly highly technical, but gives very detailed information on the parts and use of the camera. Would be happy to fax / send a copy if required.

Chris. Loretto

State Library of Victoria

328 Swanston Street

Melbourne 3000

Victoria

Australia

Tel: + 61 3 9669 9850

Fax: + 61 3 9669 9616


Message #73

Date: Mar 22 2000 15:55:06 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Camera manuals

Dear Cheryl

We have a copy of the Service Manual and Parts List for the MRD1, MRD2 and MRD2/30 if you need it. We are down here in New Zealand so you might just get a better offer from someone closer.

Regards

Andy Fenton

Managing Director

NZ Micrographic Services, 4 Oxford Street, Tawa, Wellington

Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email: afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz


Message #72

Date: Mar 22 2000 10:28:54 EST
From: Cheryl Coovert <clcoov0@pop.uky.edu
Subject: Camera manuals

Question: Does anyone have a copy of an old technical manual for Kodak (Recordak) MR-D or MR-G cameras? If so, my department at the University of Kentucky would like to talk with you about obtaining a copy of this. Cheryl Coovert

Reprographics Dept.

King Library

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506-0039

(606) 257-3329

or email clcoov0@pop.uky.edu or rjryde01@pop.uky.edu


Message #71

Date: Mar 21 2000 20:47:49 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Coloured tinges on microfilms

Joe

I also have taken Kodak to task on some of the dyes, particularly the red dye in their dup film which does hang around in the chemical. I have also had the experience of cleaning a multitude of films which still exhibit the pink tinge.

I agree and have heard from Kodak that the dyes are not harmful per se. I personally have a problem with the dye being visible on processed film and that is, if the dye has not been washed out then what other (fixer) chemicals may not have been washed out. Certainly, rewashing the pink films easily removes the excess colour and a simple test by masking the emulsion in bands and running under a tap will prove this. Generally the films that I have seen exhibiting this problem have also shown evidence of oxidation in part, which is why I believe the washing was inadequate.

So my advice is if you have film with a bit of colour in it then rewash in a processor with adequate wash, it doesn?t need chemical in it, which can be done relatively cheaply.

A small word of caution. The very same films that exhibit this often have other associated poor filming/processing practices such as sellotape splices which are delaminating and shedding glue and gunk through the film so watch out you don?t get a film split. They may also be acetate films, which may mean the drying aspects of the film are much different to the modern-day polyester material.

Kind regards

Andy Fenton

NZ Micrographic Services,
4 Oxford Street,
Tawa, Wellington

Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email: afenton@micrographics.co.nz

Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz

CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. All content is to be treated as confidential unless otherwise specified, and is not to be forwarded to third parties without the prior permission of the author. To do so may breach the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993. If you have received this e-mail message in error please delete it and notify me. Thank you.


Message #70

Date: Mar 20 2000 09:24:44 EST
From: "Dick Harrington" <rharring@vsla.edu
Subject: RE: Coloured tinges on microfilms

Joe,

My experience with tinges on microfilm has demonstrated that they are the result of dyes that are in the film for controlling exposure to light, such as Kodak's direct duplicate silver film which has a red dye. When other film is processed through the same developer as the duplicate film, they will acquire a pink tinge to them. I have spoken with Kodak about this in the past and they have stated that this is not harmful to the film or for long term storage. In many cases, after storing for awhile, the tinge fades away. Another reason for a color tinge can be the type of film being used, such as a green tinge being produced by film used for COM work. This is film that is especially manufactured for exposure to laser or cathode-ray type lighting, and it usually produces a green tinge after being processed. Again, according to both Kodak and Fuji film producers, not harmful to film used for long-term or archival storage.


Message #69

Date: Mar 19 2000 21:30:20 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Microfilming

Dear Soraya

There are many issues which support microfilm for long term preservation of records and particularly when handling records of a fragile nature. I support the comments that I have already seen from other parties but just wanted to offer another perspective should your vital records include modern records which are intended to be kept permanently.

The likes of the Kodak Digital Archive-writer 4800 provides an option for you to scan your records and convert the images to 16mm microfilm as part of the same scan process. The beauty of this is that you can scan, deskew and clean up all images of the (modern) records and then produce an archival quality microfilm of them as well as an access version in digital form.

I stress that this option suits foolscap or A4 records of a modern and robust nature and certainly don?t recommend it for fragile or older unique records. This option can be compared with producing the microfilm first and scanning second which is often the only option for unique and older records but probably more expensive than the DAW option with modern records.

Kind regards

Andy Fenton

NZ Micrographic Services,
4 Oxford Street,
Tawa, Wellington

Phone: (04) 232 9396
Fax: (04) 232 9399
Email: afenton@micrographics.co.nz

Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz

CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. All content is to be treated as confidential unless otherwise specified, and is not to be forwarded to third parties without the prior permission of the author. To do so may breach the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993. If you have received this e-mail message in error please delete it and notify me. Thank you.


Message #68

Date: Mar 19 2000 21:33:36 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Film winders and light boxes

Hi Heather

I recently did some research on rewinders. In particular, I wanted the Australian brand known as the Easton Rewinder. After much research I found they had been bought out and that division subsequently closed down, I think it was Panasonic.

I support Robert Mottice?s comments and I had two other criteria which were crucial to me.

One of them was a counter-balance on the handle. When inspecting 100ft rolls of microfilm if you have a 4inch handle made of metal when you take your hand off the winder to inspect the film, the handle will rotate to the "6 o?clock position" if it is not counter-balanced and likely cause cinching or scratching on the film. The other issue is if the handle is as much as 4 inches long it is not particularly practical for detailed inspection of 100ft rolls of microfilm, the reason being there is too much wrist and arm and shoulder movement to rotate or move a few images of film along at a time. So for this sort of work I prefer something with a two to three inch handle. These can often be made of lighter construction and hence the counter-balance factor is eliminated. Regrettably, I haven?t located another source for these since the early nineties.

The other issue for me is the spindle. Our experience in New Zealand is that there are many reels from yesteryear which do not have a solid core through the centre, such as the early Kodak black metal reels that you may be familiar with. Modern plastic reels, as well as square holes and a keyway, as Robert described, also have a central core. For this reason I am a fan of the counter-sinkable ball-bearing principle on the spindle which keeps pressure on the inside of the reel and is easiest to fit snuggly. The keyway is an equally good option but you need something to stop the reel from slipping forward when winding at moderate speed. I am not a fan of the screw-on locks that hold the reels tight against the rewinder as it is too much effort to load and unload films.

My sources led me to three companies. There seems to be a dearth of them worldwide now and without any particular order (because they are all remarkably expensive); they are as follows.

Microfilm Shop (www.microfilm.com)

Precision Microproducts of America Inc.( WWW.P-M-A.COM )

Hollywood Film Company (sales@hollywoodfilmco.com)

Motorised rewinders. I have played with one of these that I obtained from Solar in UK and whilst not a fan of it for close-up inspection, it makes cinching too easy, it can be good for microfilm units where there is much winding to be done. The price was prohibitive but the principle is sound and once you learn the (adjustable) speed rates it can be quite a handy tool and certainly eliminates the "occupational overuse" (OOS) issues.

I mentioned the Easton rewinder. I like those for the work we do with 1000ft rolls where you need a tall winder made of solid metal and my favoured pressure ball-bearing spindle does tend to cause wear on the brass inserts on those 1000ft rolls so here I do support the screw-on or pinch-clip reel holder that fits on the end of the spindle after the reel has been placed on it. A lot of the winders are made for the movie industry of course, and consequently, often for editing purposes they can be as much as

12inches long which is grossly impractical for the average microfilm unit so do check you don?t get anything more than a two-inch spindle.

Regarding light tables, my experience suggests that making your own is by far the cheapest and the only way to get one which suits your particular inspection room setup. Every time I price one I?m dismayed at the price and invariably it?s a raised box above the bench top which I find impractical and awkward as you are always working over it. I prefer to cut a slot in the benchtop and fit appropriate perspex ? normally a white/opaque (ensure it?s the non-diffuser type as this provides a mottled image which makes inspecting positive microfilm rather difficult) fitted flush with the benchtop. (This makes it easier to clean.) Fit a light on the underside of the bench making sure it doesn?t affect your knees. It?s the consistent even-toned white perspex that softens the light source and makes it very even and steady on the eyes. Robert Mottice?s point is acknowledged.

Regarding Robert Mottice?s comments, I found that a thin fluoro white light, about 6-12inches long by half inch diameter is good because it stays nice and cool.

As always, you wouldn?t want anyone to do either of the above occupations day-in, day-out, all day long, without appropriate breaks and rests.

NZ Micrographic Services, 4 Oxford Street, Tawa, Wellington

Phone: (04) 232 9396 Fax: (04) 232 9399 Email: afenton@micrographics.co.nz

Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz

CAUTION: This e-mail message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. All content is to be treated as confidential unless otherwise specified, and is not to be forwarded to third parties without the prior permission of the author. To do so may breach the New Zealand Privacy Act 1993. If you have received this e-mail message in error please delete it and notify me. Thank you.


Message #67

Date: Mar 19 2000 19:51:11 EST
From: Joe Arthur <j.arthur@unisec.unimelb.edu.au
Subject: Coloured tinges on microfilms

We have recently seen some silver microfilms featuring pink or green tinges on unexposed areas & throughout the d.min areas of the rolls.

These films are a variety of camera masters, master duplicates, 16 & 35mm, polyester & acetate base, from recent processing back to 1982, processed by at least three different bureaux, and on stock from various manufacturers. The films have been stored in

climatic conditions suitable for medium-long term storage, and on close inspection, do not seem to display any degradation of the images.

We have been informed that inadequate fixing is the cause of pink tinging.

We have sent a sample of the green tinged film to Kodak seeking advise, and asked other local "experts" as well, but so far, to no avail.

My questions are: What is the green tinge? Are there any consequences for the films with either pink or green tinge in long-term storage? If so, what remedies can be applied? Thanks, Joe Arthur


Message #66

Date: Mar 17 2000 14:25:46 EST
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca
Subject: RE: Microfilming and destroying records

when you refer to "vital records" do you mean "vital statistics" eg: birth, death, marriage, records? In that case, standardised formats are best microfilmed on a planetary 16 mm camera. or do you mean records of vital importance, better described as "organizational records" In that case the size of the documents and the variation found in the colours of the documents play a roll. 50 thousand white letter size documents are best filmed on 16 mm. maps, plans, hand written notes, on fifty different varieties of paper stock are best filmed on 35 mm. closed files are best kept on roll film, Files that are constantly updated are best kept in jacketed fiche. Either way, the original film should be permanently stored, and user copies made for distribution.

Thought should be given to the type of readers and printers on the field.

Is it a well financed research university library or a technician with a 16x magnifying glass.

Vital statistics records are most commonly read using roll film readers. Fiche readers are common but not as common as roll film readers.

Can fiching your records be justified by the purchase of x numbers of fiche readers out in the field.

Your title "European Bank for Reconstruction and Development" implies that you maintain Post European War records and records from areas that may not be as technologically advanced as Berlin and London. Where were these records produced and where will they be accessed?

Thought needs to be given as to how your microfilmed records will be used.

In some cases, the original is stored in roll form and distributed as a third genaration fiche,

In that case, it should be microfilmed on 16 mm microfilm since the volume of fiche is increased by a factor of 16 if you film the same material on 35 mm film.

Re: storage of original microfilmed records.

We keep all of our original vital statistics records in permanant secure off site storage (inexpensive since these are rarely if ever accessed) (give the nature of the records it is difficult to justify their destruction).

The same is true of our historically significant records.

If the are not as vital as all that, the original records are destroyed by a reputable secure storage paper shredding and recycling firm.

But only after the original microfilm has been approved as being of the proper quality.

We never destroy original records if they have been electronically scanned but not microfilmed.

Our institution does not have a Betamax or one of those IBM computer card readers.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp recently ran a radio series about Lost and Found Sound.

Where they played sounds of a a blacksmith hammering metal, a horse pulling a plow, A telagraph operator using Morse code and others.

The person representing the sound museum reminded the listeners of the sound you could hear as you passed by the computer room as those card readers "processed" all those cards.

He then claimed that he has been unable to find a recording of that sound.

A sound that was so common that nobody bothered to record it. And now impossible to reproduce because there is now no need to make it and all the machinery used to make it jas been relegated to the scrap heap.

In other words. make sure that what you turn your record into will still be usable in fifty years.

The movie industry is suddenly realizing that it has a similar problem.

Bruno Lindner

Archival Microfilm

Information and Data Management Branch Information, Science and Technology Agency Phone: (250) 356-7368 Fax: (250) 387-4122 E-mail: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca http://www.ista.gov.bc.ca


Message #65

Date: Mar 17 2000 10:33:53 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Microfilming

While our company does not microfilm vital records, we are heavily involved in preserving "archival" documents (periodicals, newspapers, doctoral dissertations). For a variety of reasons, none of the digital formats are suitable for actually preserving records of permanent value.

While 35mm rollfilm is the preservationist's format of choice for serial information, it is not well suited to unitized documents such as vital records. It is cumbersome to access and is not updatable.

Jacketed microfiche, on the other hand, are easily updated and ideally suited to unitized documents.

Best of all worlds would be to film onto 35mm film at low reduction and scan (digitize) simultaneously using one of the new hybrid ameras such as the Zeutschel.

Robert Mottice


Message #64

Date: Mar 17 2000 09:26:36 EST
From: GarciaS@ebrd.com
Subject: Microfilming

Dear Colleagues,

We are reviewing the procedures currently used when microfilming the vital records of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In order to gain a picture of current practice in other organisations, I would appreciate it if you could please answer some questions:

  1. In which format(s) your Vital Records are kept?
  2. In your experience, what are the pro and cons of roll film, fiche and scanning?
  3. What are the procedures and methods you employ for destruction of your vital records when kept on support as mentioned in question 2.

Many thanks for your help.

Soraya Garcia-Merino

Records Management Assistant Records Management & Archives EBRD
garcias@ebrd.org


Message #63

Date: Mar 17 2000 09:16:28 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Film winders and light boxes

When it comes to film winders, I've tried them all and the best ones are available through Neumade Products Corporation, 200 Connecticut Avenue, P.O. Box 5001, Norwalk, Connecticut 06856-5001.

One very important characteristic when choosing winders is the crank ratio. When winding large (1000 or 2000 feet) rolls, a crank ratio of 1:3 is ideal. When winding the typical small plastic spooks, a crank ratio of 1:4 is much more appropriate. The ratio refers to how many times the handle rotates compared to the number of times the reel rotates.

Another confusing aspect of choosing a winder is the spindle configuration. Spindles come in two different configurations depending upon the hole design of the reels or flanges. Modern plastic microfilm spools have square holes on both sides and have a keyway. The round shaft with a key works best on these. Large metal flanges and reels for handling 1000 or 2000 foot rolls require a round shaft with a key. Therefore a round shaft with a key permits using all of today's spools, reels and flanges.

I believe the model number for the ones I recommend is GE#1 for 35mm film. Ideally, you should purchase a "pair" of these.

While the illustrations do not fax well, I will fax you the page from their catalog.

Regarding lightboxes, the best ones use incandescent lamps and not fluorescent. I find the spectral characteristics of incandescent illumination best for evaluating microfilm images. It is also easier on the eyes. The best one ever made was all plastic and was made by Kodak but unfortunately, like most of Kodak's high sundries, it is no longer being made. I still have two of them from the 50's and wouldn't part with them for love or money.

Light Impressions, 439 Monroe Street, PO Box 940, Rochester, New York has a nice assortment of lightboxes. Their website is www.lightimpressionsdirect.com

Regards,

Robert Mottice


Message #62

Date: Mar 16 2000 23:31:48 EST
From: Peberdy Warwick <Warwick.Peberdy@dcilgp.qld.gov.au
Subject: Microfilming Public Records

Dear Members,

As a new subscriber to MicroLink I would like to inform you of a Queensland State Archives' publication called 'Microfilming Public Records', the 4th Edition of which was printed late last year.

The QSA' Preservation Services Branch is responsible, through its Reprography Unit, for the quality testing and storage of master microfilm transferred to Archives by Queensland government agencies, as well as for in-house microfilming. These agencies have microfilming carried out by commercial microfilming bureaus. 'Microfilming Public Records' was published to assist these agencies with the appraisal of records for microfilming and providing advice on tender specifications, filming and processing standards and QSA storage requirements.

'Microfilming Public Records' is available for downloading or printing from the Queensland State Archives' website at: http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/services/government/microfilming.html

I would be interested to receive any comments on the publication.

Regards,

Warwick Peberdy

Manager, Preservation Services
Queensland State Archives
435 Compton Road, RUNCORN QLD 4113 Australia
PO Box 1397, SUNNYBANK HILLS QLD 4109 Australia
Phone: +61 7 3875 8704
Fax: +61 7 3875 8764
Email Warwick.Peberdy@dcilgp.qld.gov.au


Message #61

Date: Mar 16 2000 21:55:43 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Film winders and light boxes

  1. Could list members advise as to suppliers of film winders and light boxes? Please provide contact details, including fax and email and/or website addresses.
  2. Does anyone have any recommendations as to 'state of the art' brands of winders and lightboxes, or any general comments about 'points to look for' when acquiring this equipment.

Heather Brown

Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia
Ph: (61 8) 82077317
Fax: (61 8) 82077274
Email: heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #60

Date: Mar 14 2000 09:39:18 EST
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: address change

Please note interim change in web site address below.....THE CORRECT VERSION! (includes the .com)

Mea culpa... Thanks, again. Paul

Paul Montgomery

577 Locust Street
Prescott, WI 54021
A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788
Fax: 715-262-3823
http://www.pressenter.com/~apintl


Message #59

Date: Mar 12 2000 17:54:31 EST
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: Web Site

Please note interim change in web site address below..... Thanks.

Paul

Paul Montgomery

A&P International Phone: 715-262-5788

577 Locust Street Fax: 715-262-3823

Prescott, WI 54021 http://www.pressenter/~apintl


Message #58

Date: Mar 03 2000 08:03:14 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier

A company by the name of Veeder Root at one time made all sorts of counting devices...mechanical as well as electronic. Some were used on agricultural hay balers. These relatively low cost devices can be positioned on the camera bed and photographed along with the image. For best focus, it should be mounted so that the numerals are in the same plane as the document being photographed.

Robert Mottice


Message #57

Date: Mar 02 2000 13:27:12 EST
From: "Boling, Sandy" <sandy@sos.state.ga.us
Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier

We also have wired "Wand" frame counters from Connecticut Micrographics to MRDs and used another style we were able to acquire through the Genealogical Society of Utah with excellent results. (However, this latter source is not a common option.) I've been told that people who are very good at tinkering with electronics can construct similar devices fairly easily. Wish more of us had the expertise!

Sandy Boling

Projects Manager
Georgia Department of Archives & History
330 Capitol Avenue, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Voice: 404-656-2378
Fax: 404-651-8471
Email: sandy@sos.state.ga.us


Message #56

Date: Mar 02 2000 13:07:06 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: vesicular film / Modulex

Today's vesicular films have, in theory at least, a life expectancy of 100 years. It's difficult to test because the heat used during accelerated aging tests destroys the stuff in a matter of hours. Even the oldest Kalvar film which gave off hydrogen chloride is still in good condition. Some of these films were produced in the late 60's and are still very readable.

Can't speak to the thickness of the actual image bearing layers but today's vesicular film in total is about 3.6 mils thick and Kodak's standard silver print film is about 4.2 mils thick. The image layer of vesicular has to be relatively thick to accomodate the bubble diameters. With flat-grain technology, the emulsion layer of silver film is a whole lot thinner. All this spells higher resolution for silver films.

We do not use hardener in our fixer...we don't feel we need it.

Pre-exposure on vesicular definitely is a "god-send". If it weren't for this feature, we could not reproduce many of the poorly printed newspapers. This feature allows us to usually "bring out" weak, feeble stock quotes, etc. The high contrast nature of vesicular can, at times, be used to advantage when the master densities are quite low. Some extremely low density masters can be "salvaged" by printing onto vesicular. Silver normally doesn't have a problem reproducing such small characters because it has lower contrast and higher resolution.

For 95% of our products, vesicular is fine and our customers have no problems with it at all other than the bubble collapse problem. Being fairly "insensitive" to humidity, it is ideal for un-airconditioned libraries located in tropical areas.

Regarding resolution, 150 line pairs/millimeter sounds like a lot when you're dealing with camera produced images. Here we're limited by the optical system (lens, etc.) and not the film stock. Silver camera films are capable of a whole lot more. For example, Kodak's direct duplicating film has a resolving power of 400 line pairs with low contrast test objects and 1000 line pairs with high contrast test objects. I don't know what vesicular is capable of resolving but it's far under silver.

What does all this mean??? Silver does a better job of reproducing the extremely fine, thin, broken detail encountered in poor quality documents.

The weak link in any vesicular process is the duplicator. Most are crude in design and maintaining good intimate contact during exposure is very difficult. And like Paul points out, overdeveloping vesicular causes the bubble size to become too large. It's like making detailed sand paintings with golf ball sized grains of sand.

All-in-all, it works, it's less expensive and serves the intended purpose. What more can you ask for????

Robert Mottice


Message #55

Date: Mar 02 2000 11:55:56 EST
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca
Subject: RE: exposure counter and frame identifier

griffit@liswa.wa.gov.au writes

2. We use a black background on the base of all our cameras. For many years we have used a brand name called "Modulex". For those who do not know the product, it is a bit like lego.

When filming our documents we index each frame e.g. .the date, month, year of a newspaper, or a file or cons(ecutive?) number of a document to assist the reader. We just place each block of modulex letters and numbers onto the blackboard which hold them in position.

A great product, very expensive and difficult to obtain these days. Does anybody know of an alternative product that could suit our needs.

We have added a counter to our Kodak MRD-2 and B&H FileMaster by wiring it into the film advance motor. http://www.micrographics.com/products/cam-acc/wand/wand.html or for more control http://www.micrographics.com/products/cam-acc/x-wand/x-wand.html the Minolta DAR has a built in frame itentifier and so a product such as this is not required.

In order to deal with the extreme density glare from the counter, compared to the documents that are filmed, it is possible to put a number of pieces of paper between the light source and the number screen in order to dim the amount of light entering the camera.

The light is not excessively hot but the paper should be watched for any singeing.

* Bruno Lindner

Archival Microfilming
Information and Data Management Branch
Information, Science and Technology Agency
865 Yates Street Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
phone: (250)356-7368 fax:(250)356-7368
email address: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca


Message #54

Date: Mar 02 2000 11:34:02 EST
From: "John Lauder SNMU)" <john@snmu.sol.co.uk
Subject: Vesicular versus Silver Halide

Just a quick point to add to the chat on vesicular film.

We approach this argument by looking at the purpose to which you are making the film.

If the film is going to be in daily use, then vesicular, being slightly more robust and definitely cheaper, will do. Although you will have to accept that the end product lacks the resolution of silver halide and will need replacement as the image fades. In which case, to meet such heavy use you might consider scanning the film to a digital format.

However, if the film is going to sit on a shelf, or become part of a research collection, it could be many years before it is used, in which case we argue silver halide for its longevity and reliability.

We do not produce any here for the simple reason that the Mellon Microfilming project Guidelines do not mention vesicular and while we are preserving unique items, the film we supply to the customer can be a long time on the library shelf before it is used. The record to date is three years from delivery of the film until someone took a reel out of its box and used it ,then contacted us to thank us for a job well done!

As a final note, we are now filming a newspaper collection supplied 20 years ago on vesicular, where the negatives have vanished. The image on the vesicular has vanished.

John E. Lauder john@snmu.sol.co.uk Director

Sharon Doolan sharon@snmu.sol.co.uk Technical Manager
Scottish Newspapers Microfilming Unit 4 Bankhead Medway
Edinburgh
EH11 4BY
Tel/Fax 0131 453 6872
Mobile 0468 336 834
url: www.snmu.co.uk


Message #53

Date: Mar 02 2000 10:57:20 EST
From: "Paul Kafun" <paul@houstonfearless.com
Subject: Re: vesicular film / Modulex

On the trade-offs between silver and vesicular film:

A major issue in a library environment is maintaining the readers. If an early morning user creates a transport problem and scratches a roll, any other rolls (silver or vesicular)used on that unit, prior to the next scheduled maintenance, are in jeopardy. There isn't much that can be done in such a case except educating the users.

Vesicular emulsion is thicker than silver, leaving the vesicular at a disadvantage in cases where emulsion thickness is a factor. On the other hand, a shallow scratch will show on silver more completely than on vesicular.

The addition of a hardener in the fix phase of silver film processing has made silver film more scratch-resistant than vesicular. (Told to me by a vesicular film mfr., no less!) Of course, as Bob mentioned, copy cost convinces many user to choose vesicular.

Pre-exposing vesicular film will take away some of its high-contrast characteristics, and is acceptable to the library users I've worked with. "Problem" masters (outside the limits Bob mentions) can present problems. Perhaps the duplicator is a factor. Recently we were getting copies acceptable to a discriminating user from a 0.83 master.

Likewise, vesicular resolution issues are at the high end, from what I've seen and heard. I would venture to say that 150 lp/mm is acceptable for most library applications. Another factor: less-than-ideal exposure and overdevelopment of vesicular films can affect resolution.

Paul Kafun


Message #52

Date: Mar 02 2000 08:42:03 EST
From: "Ginny Jones" <vjones@ci.newport-news.va.us
Subject: RE: vesicular film / Modulex

Pat:

Vesicular film will hold up better than silver halide with frequent usage because it doesn't scratch as easily. It does not have a long life expectancy (but no film used for reference/retrieval does). Some things to keep in mind: 1) vesicular film is opposite polarity to the original - if you are currently using positive silver halide duplicates, there will be no change. 2) some older readers and reader/printers have high "gate" temperatures (the light source gets very hot) and vesicular film images can be damaged by prolonged exposure to the high gate temps. 3) the vesicles (bubbles in the "emulsion" that form the image) can be damaged by sharp blows or punctures (this is rare, and takes a REALLY sharp blow or puncture).

Ginny Jones

(Virginia A. Jones, CRM)
Newport News Waterworks
Newport News, VA
vjones@ci.newport-news.va.us


Message #51

Date: Mar 02 2000 08:31:17 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: vesicular film / Modulex

Bell & Howell (UMI) produces many millions of feet of vesicular film each year. The majority of our customers have switched from silver halide (much to my personal chagrin) to vesicular due to price. Vesicular being all "plastic" doesn't require special storage conditions however because the image is composed of bubbles, the resolution is lower. The poorer resolution combined with higher contrast makes it a "not so good" stock for duplicating poor quality originals. As long as the original documents have normal sized text of very high quality and the camera master (first generation) was properly exposed to a density of between 0.90 to 1.20, it is an ideal film stock.

Being all plastic, vesicular doesn't scratch as easily as silver halide, it is, however, prone to a problem I call...bubble collapse. The bubbles can be easily collapsed causing what looks like a scratch. In controlled scratch tests using our "scratch-o-meter", silver wins every time.

When using vesicular, readers/viewers must be kept clean and well maintained so that they don't cause "bubble collapse".

Regarding what we call date strips on the camera bed, we used to purchase refrigerator magnet stock in long rolls. It is painted flat black, cut into short pieces and then we apply "press-on" white alpha/numeric characters. These magnets are the positioned onto a piece black sheet metal. This system has worked beautifully for several decades.

We now manually position photographic images of the characters over a flat fibre optic light sourch. Works extremely well and there are no white paper letters to get dirty.

Robert Mottice


Message #50

Date: Mar 02 2000 03:23:38 EST
From: pgriffit@liswa.wa.gov.au
Subject: vesicular film / Modulex

Dear Members

1. Vesicular duplicates used as a service (user's) copy in a Library reading room environment.

Any comments from members who produce or use this product. We currently use silver hadile duplicates.

2. We use a black background on the base of all our cameras. For many years we have used a brand name called "Modulex". For those who do not know the product, it is a bit like lego.

When filming our documents we index each frame e.g. .the date, month, year of a newspaper, or a file or cons number of a document to assist the reader. We just place each block of modulex letters and numbers onto the blackboard which hold them in position.

A great product, very expensive and difficult to obtain these days. Does anybody know of an alternative product that could suit our needs.

Pat Griffiths

Teamleader, Micrographics Preservation Services

The Library and Information Service Of Western Australia.


Message #49

Date: Mar 01 2000 16:44:57 EST
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: QC Microfilm - FYscope!

Dear listserv members,

The problem is being addressed among those who demand the highest QC; the solution may be imminent. As mentioned, we will not hide the candle! I would say that 98% of resolution charters are satisfied with the results obtained from substrates available to us manufacturers. Since we are in the business of providing perfection, it behooves us 'leap'* on these legitimate concerns, as we diligently have been doing for a couple years: testing everything we can find! Most of my correspondence on the subject has been email erased. With that in mind, see immediate reaction to NAS's circulated missive below:

Ginny et al,

This problem began quite some time ago. Walter Cybulski from NLM and Jay Wilwerth from Harvard were the first ones to bring the problem to light. It truly is a problem and one for which there are no answers at present. Bob Breslawski has asked Walter, Myron Chase and I to "write" an updated standard but documentation won't do any good without manufacturing capability and paper availability. Not sure where to go from here. The day of charts, as we used to know them, may well be over.

Bob Mottice

Hi All,

Sounds like the contrast is lower on 'modern' resolution targets. Less (reflective) density difference between the light and dark bars of the resolution target will result in lower resolution readings on the film. Also, the 'shinier' paper may produce some flare, resulting in lower resolution as well. Do we try to address this issue with the target manufacturers, or adapt to the targets....

Mike

Hi, Mike:

I think we need to keep in mind the larger picture - or at least some form of the larger picture - before further action can be taken. In order for there to be consistency and uniformity of results, reso targets have to be manufactured and produced according to specifications. There are specifications for the design of the targets themselves, but to date (at least to my knowledge) there is no specification for the paper upon which the targets can be printed to obtain optimal results when filmed using various microfilm camera systems.

Apparently we have reached a point where papers that did work well for this purpose are no longer being manufactured, so I think we need to be able to find out what that paper should be. It would be great if AIIM would collaborate with TAPPI (I believe Bill Neale has this assignment) and come up with a checklist of characteristics that, in combination with the reso patterns, would result in a reliable measuring tool when captured on film.

A manufacturer could then take the requirement and manufacture the paper.

One thing that seems to be emerging from the work Paul Montgomery has been involved with is that producing the patterns digitally doesn't work. They look fine but don't film fine. This points to the need for the targets, which are used in microphoto- graphics applications, to be produced photographically - hence, the need for a special paper.

That's step one.

Step two is actually getting someone to manufacture the paper.

Walter Cybulski

Head, QAU, NLM

To: C10@FTPLIST.AIIM.ORG

From: Robert Breslawski

Robert (Mottice), as usual is on the mark. The standard itself has been based on the easy availablity of high quality paper with the correct photographic properties. The papers of todays world, while judged to be the same in many respects, do not generate the same results. Therefore, since the specification does not really define all the needs it makes it even harder to find the right materials. Both A&P and Applied Image are trying to help out. I am pursuing some paper possibilities again within Kodak as well.

If anyone is aware of other photographic materials that might be tried, please reply to the listserv. Even collecting a list and culling out the bad ones is helpful.

Thank you.

From: Robert Breslawski

Whether we want to admit it or not, all image quality testing is subjective to some extent, and dependent on material qualities which we do not always control. However, in the short term, I think we should continue

our search for a better material. We will have to address adjustments of the measuring system once we have convinced ourselves we have the best possible technical solution (paper). Please note, I do not advocate dropping quality levels but we may have to understand how we measure it better.

Please continue to discuss this through the listserv.

Regards,

Bob Breslawski

The term active might be overstating it Walter, but I have not forgotten it. Bill Neale was working with Tappi but that work has been tedious and timeconsuming, which Bill has been very short of this year. We can expect an update in NYC. In the meantime, yes, I have been communicating with Paul in supporting him with samples. I will continue to do so with all vendors.

Regards,

Bob Breslawski

NOTE:

All these comments were generated yesterday by C-10 committee members - the industry's renouned! The committee will meet at the upcoming AIIM show; the subject is paramount.

There is some levity in all this travco among (earlier) correspondents.... one wag said; 'Yes - rubber stamps and holograms would be the way to go. Actually, if you designed the treads of a bicycle tire in the shape of the reso patterns you could print them and exercise at the same time. Pattern quality would depend on air pressure and tread ware. What exactly is the nature of the problem here? How would you state the specifications for the paper itself to a paper manufacturer? I think that unless there is some movement in that direction we'll all end up whirling'.

Whirling Dervish, Paul

'Leap' may be too strong a word today. How about 'limp'?


Message #48

Date: Mar 01 2000 14:53:25 EST
From: "Dick Harrington" <rharring@vsla.edu
Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners

In reply to Andrew Fenton's inquiry, the Library of Virginia has been using a SunRise for the past three years. We recently looked at the other options, Mekel, and Wicks and Wilson since we needed to upgrade the SunRise. The cost of upgrading was almost as expensive as purchasing a new Wicks and Wilson film scanner. I've personally used the SunRise and found it to be excellent in quality, moderate in speed, difficult to setup for each project. I software is okay, but the learning curve can be steep depending upon the individual. Not the most user friendly software I've used. We compared the SunRise to both the other vendors. I was impressed with Wicks and Wilson's ease of use, quality of output, and speed. However, the decision to purchase was based on the facts that we already knew the SunRise software (learning curve would be less), they offered a trade-in on our current model, and the quality output was excellent. The new ProScan was delivered and being setup today, so I cannot comment on the software or equipment changes at this time.

In my opinion, for difficult work encompassing older documents in fair to poor condition, the SunRise is excellent. The Wicks and Wilson does a good job and seems easier to use out of the box, and would probably be excellent for production work. How it holds up under day to day use I cannot comment upon since I only worked with it for a few hours using very poor film as a test, but I was impressed with the results. The Mekel I evaluated for roll film also did a good job and would probably be fine in a production environment. It did well on improving poor original film images and was fairly easy to use. However, I have not used this model for any length of time either, so cannot make a valid comparison against the SunRise.


Message #47

Date: Mar 01 2000 12:25:44 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: Systems cleaner

Can't remember who was asking about Kodak Developer Systems Cleaner a month or so ago but Synergy Graphics of Dexter, Michigan just sent me a sample of Chromate Free Systems Cleaner to try. They claim that you simply spray it on, let it sit, then hose it off. I haven't tried it yet but stay tuned!!

Robert Mottice


Message #46

Date: Mar 01 2000 11:43:49 EST
From: "Dick Harrington" <rharring@vsla.edu
Subject: RE: Rotary use

I agree with both Bruno and Sandy on their statements about microfilming, rotary cameras, and production goals. We've have not been using rotary cameras since we became a preservation microfilming shop rather than strictly a source document microfilm provider. Most of the reasons were stated by Sandy and Bruno, but another major reason we have not used a rotary is that the resolution from these cameras is not as high as those

from a good planetary and also the resolution can vary much more in a rotary than in a planetary camera. The parts wear out faster, rollers can stick, lenses become dirtier faster, etc. which all contribute to resolution variances. For normal source document filming of fairly modern records in excellent condition, a rotary would probably meet most required standards. However, with extremely fine line, faint ink, and poor contrast documents, we've used planetary cameras. The results are noticeably better.

Dick Harrington

The Library of Virginia

800 East Broad St.

Richmond, VA 23219

rharring@vsla.edu

Tel: 804 236-3701

Fax: 804 236-3722


Message #45

Date: Feb 29 2000 10:57:28 EST
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca
Subject: FW: Rotary clubs

Boling, Sandy [mailto:sandy@sos.state.ga.us]

writes

(There is an entirely different controversy concerning whether any document with information of enduring value should be filmed with rotary equipment, because you run the risk of damaging the document and losing the information before its filmed.)

The British Columbia Archives does not use rotary cameras for that very reason. On the other hand, as an example, all Land Title Office records are filmed on rotary cameras. These are all archivally important land transfer records which will eventually be transferred over to the Archives.

They are filmed on rotary cameras however since the paper is of consistently good quality and it's a lot quicker to feed documents through a rotary camera.

Old paper that is easily torn and has pencil marks on it is not a good candidate for rotary cameras especially given the chance of blurring. Another issue to consider here is that the resolution of a moving image is a lot less than that of an image that has been taken from a stationary camera. This means that the fine detail of documents would be lost when filmed on a rotary camera, Something that is of concern when preserving documents created before the invention of typewriters and the quick rewrite programme.

Something else, the exposure meter on a rotary camera is one that reacts to the document as it passes by. That's why the leading edge of a document is a shade lighter or darker than the rest of the document. And that's true of the standard white piece of paper. Pushing discoloured documents past the exposure meter creates all kinds of distortions on the finished product.

* Bruno Lindner

Archival Microfilming

Information and Data Management Branch

Information, Science and Technology Agency

865 Yates Street Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4

phone: (250)356-7368 fax:(250)356-7368

email address: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca


Message #44

Date: Feb 29 2000 10:57:14 EST
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca
Subject: Production Goals

I think Sandy Boling meant to forward this to the list

* Bruno Lindner

-----Original Message-----

From: Boling, Sandy [mailto:sandy@sos.state.ga.us]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:22 PM
To: Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX
Subject: RE: Production Goals

Just so we are all on the same page and understand things the same way....

I am compelled to add that perhaps we are confusing age of a document with condition. The age of a document may be immaterial in terms of handling, but condition is not. Embrittled papers, or papers in poor condition for whatever reason, will require more time to film because they are fragile. Additionally, fragile or damaged documents cannot be filmed on a rotary camera, and this affects film time. (There is an entirely different controversy concerning whether any document with information of enduring value should be filmed with rotary equipment, because you run the risk of damaging the document and losing the information before its filmed.) The age of material could be significant if institutional guidelines do not permit using rotary equipment with documents created before an arbitrary date--1900, for example.

16mm and 35mm films are an issue, because the 16mm roll and its greater reduction ratio will hold more items, whether 100 ft. or 125 ft. Then, of course, the length also determines the total number of items at whatever reduction. As Bruno says, we are emphasizing contents.

Document preparation takes longer than all other tasks combined. It's difficult to make general statements concerning how long preparation will take, because materials are so diverse. Physical condition, previous arrangement, format (uniformity), and presentation (numbering and disassembling scrapbook items, removal of fasteners, disbinding) are all variables affecting preparation time. Preparation includes targeting, which also is affected by collection content and condition. This is what Bruno means when saying that the quality of the originals affects prep time, as his letterpress example illustrates.

Bruno's comments reflect valid areas of activity. I, for one, appreciate him sharing them with us.

Sandy Boling

Projects Manager
Georgia Department of Archives & History
330 Capitol Avenue, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Voice: 404-656-2378
Fax: 404-651-8471
Email: sandy@sos.state.ga.us


Message #43

Date: Feb 28 2000 23:30:35 EST
From: Paul Montgomery <apintl@pressenter.com
Subject: Resolution charts

Dear Members,

Having just this evening been approved to join the MicroLink listserv (and finding the MicroformsOregon list mentioned on MicroLink's web site), I wanted to appraise you directly of the 'buzz' going on today on the listserv of AIIM's C-10 Committee's (QC Microfilm). We are Trade Member of AIIM and a C-10 volunter. Ginny's initial posting received a number of interesting responses beyond mine - which I'll filter tomorrow and send along (so this one doesn't get too long)! Thanks to Siow Lian San of NAS for airing his frustrations. Ours are magnified many fold, but we're plugging away!!!

See below: (Start at the bottom).....

Ginny et al....

Manufacturers of substrates have been fleeing the marketplace faster than microfilmers are embracing digital! Always optimistic, A&P dutifully has been sending testing samples of charts on different manufacturers' materials. Ron Pizzarie at Preservation Resources has been gracious (and patient) in these many tests - which have come up short. (On 1/3/00 and 2/15/00 the same expensive samples were received by Siow Lian San at NAS. No reply). Kodak's Bob Breslawski, C-10 Chairman, is IN TUNE with our every test via me and Ron. Bob has been extremely helpful with materials. Ron and I have been feeding specs to Walter Cybulski who will appeal to TAPPI, the paper manufacturing industry association. Hopefully the need will resonate there that microfilm is very much alive and we need a proper material that will reproduce faithfully!

We EVEN have tried creating line pair groupings on a computer, and direct printing the image to RC material and via interneg to other substrates. Alas, with NO avail. The Computer-made sample was so inferior we saved on FedEX to Singapore. ....Mills are NOT putting more QC in computer papers.

GONE are Chronopaque and HelioScan and LOP and N5 and on and on.... Our master negatives are right on, but an unsatisfactory number of groupings are lost from contacting down the line....It's all in finding the RIGHT substrate!

BUT, we are DAYS away from ANOTHER test sample for Ron and have high hopes for this material. Believe me, Ginny,when we find a suitable material, A&P won't keep it a secret!

Paul

The following message is from a microfilm listserv. I found the information interesting and a little disturbing. If anyone can help Siow Lian San, I'm sure he will appreciate it. I'm wondering if the trend he mentions is true, and, if so, what, if anything, can the standards committees do (other than be aware)?

Ginny Jones

(Virginia A. Jones, CRM)
Newport News Waterworks
Newport News, VA
vjones@ci.newport-news.va.us


Message #42

Date: Feb 28 2000 12:47:48 EST
From: "Walter Cybulski" <CYBULSKW@mail.nlm.nih.gov
Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners

Hi, Bob et al.

I am submitting the following statement of the problem for everyone's review & comment. Comments to me will probably not amount to much. Comments to Bob Breslawski at AIIM and posting of progress on work done by anyone willing to help resolve this problem will.

[Message previously sent as a response to a question]:

I think we need to keep in mind the larger picture - or at least some form of the larger picture - before further action can be taken.

In order for there to be consistency and uniformity of results, reso targets have to be manufactured and produced according to specifications.

There are specifications for the design of the targets themselves, but to date (at least to my knowledge) there is no specification for the paper upon which the targets can be printed to obtain optimal results when filmed using various microfilm camera systems.

Apparently we have reached a point where papers that did work well for this purpose are no longer being manufactured, so I think we need to be able to find out what that paper should be. It would be great if AIIM would collaborate with TAPPI (I believe Bill Neale has this assignment) and come up with a checklist of characteristics that, in combination with the reso patterns, would result in a reliable measuring tool when captured on film. A manufacturer could then take the requirement and manufacture the paper.

One thing that seems to be emerging from the work Paul Montgomery has been involved with (and which Preservation Resources has been assisting with testing) is that it looks like producing the patterns digitally doesn't work. This points to the need for the targets, which are used in microphotographics applications, to be produced photographically - hence, the need for a special paper.

That's step one. Step two is actually getting someone to manufacture the paper.

Step three is testing to make sure the paper works. From then on, I think it ends up back in the hands of manufacturers who are willing to produce the reso pattern targets on the miraculous paper and certify that when I look through the microscope at microfilm I'm seeing reliable evidence that the camera system is performing as required.

Simple.

- Walter Cybulski

Head, Quality Assurance Unit

National Library of Medicine

301-496-2690

"Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com 02/28/00 12:30PM

Microlink - http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/microlink

We are fortunate to have an extremely talented electro-mechanical-optical-digital expert working at Bell & Howell (formerly UMI). He has been with UMI for at least 36 years and his name is Andrew (Andy) Amort. Having just checked with him, I find that he is willing to address many technical issues regarding microfilm scanners, etc. We presently have 15 to 20 scanners operating "round-the-clock". While not on the "list", he may be contacted at:

Andrew.Amort@Bellhowell.Infolearning.com

Regards,

Robert Mottice


Message #41

Date: Feb 28 2000 12:33:36 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners

We are fortunate to have an extremely talented electro-mechanical-optical-digital expert working at Bell & Howell (formerly UMI). He has been with UMI for at least 36 years and his name is Andrew (Andy) Amort. Having just checked with him, I find that he is willing to address many technical issues regarding microfilm scanners, etc. We presently have 15 to 20 scanners operating "round-the-clock". While not on the "list", he may be contacted at: Andrew.Amort@Bellhowell.Infolearning.com

Regards,

Robert Mottice


Message #40

Date: Feb 28 2000 09:37:28 EST
From: "Abraham, Stuart" <stuart.abraham@pro.gov.uk
Subject: Commercial feasibility of putting scanned film on line

The UK Public Record Office is researching various avenues of providing scanned images of microfilmed classes with a search engine database for individual images, or small collections of them, as a pay by view on line service to users. Does anyone have experience of establishing how commercially viable this is for specific collections?

Stuart Abraham

Project Manager Operation Open Access
Public Record Office


Message #39

Date: Feb 28 2000 05:12:24 EST
From: Alison.Walker@mail.bl.uk (Alison Walker)
Subject: Newsplan Project Director
To: All Members of Microlink

The advertisement below appeared today the 28 February in the Guardian (U.K.) Newspaper.

Newsplan Project Director

The Trustees of the NEWSPLAN Company seek a Project Director to direct a major preservation microfilming project funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, with partnership funding from participating libraries and the newspaper industry. NEWSPLAN is a collaborative programme covering all Regions of the United Kingdom to preserve local newspapers by microfilming them to international archival standards.

The successful candidate will co-ordinate and direct the NEWSPLAN Project, and ensure that its objectives are achieved to agreed standards and targets within set costs and budgets. The Director will manage and ensure the active participation of the key stakeholders; maintain links with the UK newspaper industry and other companies involved with the Project; and liaise closely with the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Candidates must have proven management skills, and experience of managing a microfilming or similar operation would be advantageous.

Good communication skills are essential, as is an understanding and sympathy for library collections and, in particular, for newspaper collections. The successful candidate must be an effective and persuasive negotiator and be able to demonstrate business and marketing skills. A professional commitment to quality-driven customer service is essential.

The post as Project Director will be a fixed-term contract post for three years, which is the duration of the project. Salary on appointment will be ?42,111 a year. The post will be located in offices in North London.

For further details and information please visit: www.bl.uk/collections/newspaper/ .

Letters of application, setting out the candidate's relevant experience for the post, should be accompanied by a full CV. Please mark the letter NEWSPLAN and send it to Scott Edgar Response,

75 Farringdon Road, London
EC1M 3PH. Alternatively, please
email newsplan2000@segroup.co.uk.

All applications should be received by 17th March 2000.


Message #38

Date: Feb 28 2000 01:20:01 EST
From: SIOW_Lian_San@NHB.gov.sg
Subject: Sourcing for good quality resolution charts

Hello everyone.

I would like to highlight a technical problem currently faced by my institution, the National Archives of Singapore. Being a small country, we have been aggressive in using microfilm to preserve archival records that are only of informational value. Since 1980s, we have established a large in-house microfilming programme and we are very particular about the quality control of the microfilms produced. It is a standard practice for us to film the appropriate resolution test chart at the beginning and end of every roll of microfilm and this enables us to check the performance of our cameras, among other things.

Some six years ago, we began to notice that there was a drop in the quality of the resolution test charts purchased in UK and USA. At first we thought that the lens of our cameras had all deteriorated but after a series of in-depth investigations, we realised that the newer test charts (eg, MT-7) were produced using a different material which made them glossy-based and this resulted in a consistent lower readings (at least one pattern less) as compared to the earlier batches we had bought in the 80s (also supplied by Applied Image which were all matt and non-reflective based). Our findings were consistent with charts produced by several well known manufacturers/suppliers such as A&P, The Microfilm Shop, MicroD International and Kodak.

NAS subsequently wrote to several of them in late 1994 and the following year to clarify. The explanation from one of the manufacturers was that the 'Chronopaque' material which the company used to buy from Dupont for the test chart base was no longer available. It was acknowledged that the 'shiny material' reflectance could be the cause of the lower resolution attained.

Since then, we had been trying other sources for alternate supplies but failed, thus we have to use the old test charts so that we could have a more accurate measurement of resolution quality.

Early this year, we tested yet another new generation of test chart produced by A&P. The charts were made on a thinner version of RC paper (matt-based). The result achieved was 2 test patterns less (5.6) when filmed at 25 times reduction. That was even worse than the glossy-based test chart that we previously purchased. The trend is very worrying. There is an urgent need to bring the matter open for attention and discussion in this list.

We would like to know :

a) Have other members encountered similar problems? If yes, we would like to learn from you how you have resolved the issue.

b) We would be equally keen to know if members know of sources where we could obtain the good, old matt-based Chronopaque paper resolution charts.

Thanking all in advance.

Siow Lian San

National Archives of Singapore
No 1, Canning Rise
Singapore 179868
E-mail : SIOW_Lian_San@NHB.GOV.SG Fax : 65-3370237


Message #37

Date: Feb 27 2000 21:14:22 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: High Volume/Production Microfilm Scanners

To All Subscribers

I am reviewing high volume production microfilm scanners for quality conversion of preservation microfilm and have a short list of three. They are

* the SunRise ProScan IV

* the Mekel (different model for three different formats)

* the Wicks & Wilson (different model for three different formats)

I don't know of any other models so certainly advice as to those would be of interest too.

Format Capability.
My interest is in the ability to scan from predominantly rollfilm, secondly microfiche but also aperture card. I am aware there are a wealth of aperture-card scanners on the market but I would rather stick to one brand to cover all three formats whether it be the SunRise method where you change heads, or you have a different machine for each format as in the Mekel and Wicks & Wilson solution. Dealing with the different formats I can see benefits in the ProScan changing heads for the different formats. However, if you had a job say where you had rollfilm and fiche to scan the benefits of two separate machines are obvious. Further, I presume if, say, the fiche machine breaks down because of perhaps a circuit board problem or similar, then maybe you can rob parts from the (unused) machine to keep your fiche production going.

Image Quality.
I now have samples from SunRise and Mekel machines. I sent the same duplicate negative film with about 10 varying images with a particular emphasis on weak text and/or poor contrast on those images, such as pencil on a pale blue background. The results I got back off the SunRise were excellent. The results I got back off the Mekel were average and of concern given that weak pencil text was missing in part. I currently have another set of samples being done by Wicks & Wilson and Mekel again. The reason I am sending another set to another organisation with a Mekel scanner is that I am not one hundred percent sure that I was sent the best that the Mekel scanner could do and for the level of investment I want to investigate this thoroughly.

Image Software.
This is obviously another big part of the quality issue and the machines seem to offer proprietary software that is pivotal in the resulting image quality. Whilst we know this will never be perfect the idea of software that gets 99% of images as good as we could expect is very attractive. So any comments on good or bad software associated with these machines is of particular interest.

CCD Array.
The SunRise boasts the best at 8800 pixels. The Wicks & Wilson, all three models, are 7500 pixels and the Mekel has 8200 for the rollfilm and 6000 pixels for the microfiche scanner, I am not sure what they offer for aperture-cards at this stage. So my instinct suggests that the better quality attained by the SunRise is likely due to the higher pixelisation on the scanner array but I do wonder about the human factor?

Film Handling.
I have heard stories that the Mekel scanners offer a hopper-feed for their microfiche machine which is prone to jamming and obviously we cannot afford to risk fiche (jacket) Masters in such a way. I am not aware of any issues regarding rollfilm scratching with any of the above models so any input would be of interest.

Feedback.
If anyone has had any experience with choosing or testing or using these machines or other machines of similar nature then I would really value your advice. At this stage I am more interested in quality than price and really price will only make a difference if everything else is more or less equal.

Kind regards

Andrew Fenton

MANAGING DIRECTOR
Andy & Audrey Fenton, NZ Micrographic Services, 4 Oxford Street, Tawa,
Wellington
Phone: (04) 232 9396 Fax: (04) 232 9399 Email: afenton@micrographics.co.nz

Visit our Website at www.micrographics.co.nz


Message #36

Date: Feb 25 2000 08:48:59 EST
From: "Dick Harrington" <rharring@vsla.edu
Subject: Production Standards and colour

First, I would like to thank everyone that responded to my inquiry concerning various microfilm production standards. I am in the process of revising the ones that we are using and the information provided was very helpful. Once I have completed are revision of our current standards (probably within the next month), I will be delighted to provide them to anyone interested via e-mail. Just send me your e-mail address and I will include you on a list for receiving them.

In reply to another item sent recently to the list, The Library of Virginia has used colour for reference, but not for preservation. One of the completed projects was filming a collection of transportation maps dating to the early 19th century. These maps were sent to MicroColor, who filmed them on a full-size 4" x 6" colour fiche, single frame per fiche. However, we also backed this up with a set of silver black and white negative fiche, and three color separation fiche for retaining long term. The colour is used as reference and has worked very well. The other sets are retained in a climate controlled environment for long-term preservation. The originals have been semi-retired in a climate controlled archival environment and are only referred to by the public if an original signature or item on the map needs to be verified.


Message #35

Date: Feb 23 2000 05:59:12 EST
From: "Patricia Alkhoven" <Patricia.Alkhoven@konbib.nl
Subject: processing and scanning colour microfilm

Dear all,

The Koninklijke Bibliotheek, the national Library of the Netherlands, is currently carrying out desk research and practical tests to the use of colour microfilm for preservation and the scanning of these preservation colour microfilms (Cibachrome/Ilfochrome).

Research topics are: the quality, stability, development and processing, scanning devices, recommendations for scanning and last but not least, costs. Several commercial companies are known to us to process and develop colour microfilm: Herrmann & Kraemer; Preservation Resources and Microcolour Inc.

I am looking for more information about above-mentioned aspects and information about projects and hands-on experiences with colour microfilm and scanning.

Thank you,

Dr Patricia Alkhoven

Library Research Department Koninklijke Bibliotheek
National Library of the Netherlands Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5
PO Box 90407
2509 LK The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31703140441
Fax: +31703140427 patricia.alkhoven@konbib.nl


Message #34

Date: Feb 23 2000 04:24:49 EST
From: "John Lauder SNMU)" <john@snmu.sol.co.uk
Subject: Scottish Newspapers Microfilming Unit

Greetings to all members of this discussion group.

I am John Lauder and am Unit Director at the Scottish Newspapers Microfilming Unit.

The Unit is a high-quality preservation microfilming bureau in Scotland and based in Edinburgh. We are a joint project of the National Library of Scotland and the Scottish Library & Information Council. We supply almost all Scotland's public libraries with archival quality film, in addition to universities and publishers, archives and museums. We operate on a non-profit making basis.

For more information please see our website at www.snmu.co.uk I am always happy to hear from anyone interested in our field, oh and by the way we also scan film and digitise images.

John

John E. Lauder
Director
Scottish Newspapers Microfilming Unit
4 Bankhead Medway
Edinburgh
EH11 4BY
Tel/Fax 0131 453 6872
Mobile 0468 336 834
email: john@snmu.sol.co.uk
url: www.snmu.co.uk


Message #33

Date: Feb 21 2000 16:34:30 EST
From: "Lindner, Bruno ISTA:EX" <Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca
Subject: RE: Production Goals

rharring@vsla.edu writes (with my comments)

Greetings everyone! I'm new to the list, but would like any input you might have on the following. I'm attempting to evaluate the production goals for preservation filming and scanning we have established and would like to know what yours are for the following categories:

Please stipulate if per hour or per day and whether for filming or scanning or both.

1) loose papers prior to 1900

2) loose papers after 1900

The age of the document is immaterial.

Microfilming a standard 16 mm roll of film planetary camera should take about one day.

This would allow for breaks, paperwork and other distractions.

If microfilmed on a Filemaster, then a full roll of 125 foot microfilm has about 2900 exposures on it and can be easily filmed in a day if the documents are in reasonable shape.

A Minolta DR gets close to 3700 exposures on the same length of microfilm and needs about 8 to 9 hours to complete (depending on the amount of paperwork required).

Time would increase if the quality of document preparation goes below requirements.

Training should emphasize exposure setting, correct order, and placement on the frame before speed is emphasized.

Scanning a well filmed reel is much faster than scanning a poorly microfilmed one, since the mistakes stick out more in a well regimented row of images that stay within a well defined exposure range.

Training should emphasize document preparation long before film training should begin.

Thought should be given to file identification, proper order, quality of the original.

If a page is found out of place and the document belongs in a location that has already been filmed, an amendment will be required.

Thought needs to be given to the fact that paper files look different to the researcher than does a roll of microfilm. The purpose of the prepper is to change the appearance of a paper file to what a microfilm file should look like. In general this will take two and a half times longer than it will take to microfilm it.

If you are using a rotary camera, then it is quite feasible to produce two to three rolls a day,

3) bound books prior to 1900

4) bound books after 1900

These can only be microfilmed on a Kodak MRD or something similar.

If you just have to turn pages and put a glass over the volume to flatten them, then a full roll of microfilm with 1000 exposures can be microfilmed in about two and a half hours.

On the other hand, Letterpress volumes require that a sheet of backing paper be put behind each page and then a sheet of glass needs to be put over the page in order to flatten it. A full roll of microfilm containing 1600 exposures would take 8 to 10 hours of filming time, since it would be quite reasonable to only manage 4 exposures every minute.

5) take apart/ loose leaf type books

Depending on the binding, 10 minutes to half an hour each.

6) number of 100 foot 35mm film reels processed

7) number of 100 foot 16mm film reels processed

You may want to consider purchasing 40m (131 foot) reels.

The number of exposures increase by 25 percent so your long term storage fees are significantly reduced.

8) number of 100 foot 35mm film reels inspected

9) number of 100 foot 16mm film reels inspected

I suppose you mean the technical inspection.

16 and 35 mm is a useless stipulation. The length of film and it's contents are of far more importance than what the width of the microfilm.

A proper technical inspection of a roll should take 10 minutes, which would include rolling up the microfilm for duplication.

10)number of scanned images inspected (or if done as part of production, include with production goal)

I suppose you mean scanning for mistakes.

This depends on the type of original. If they are paginated, then counting pages is a lot easier to check than to notice if part of a letter is missing.

Depending on the length of the film and the type of things that need to be checked for, 30 to 60 minutes per roll.

BTW the prepping and microfilming times should be taken as an average, as described earlier, the quality of the originals will affect times.

* Bruno Lindner

Archival Microfilming
Information and Data Management Branch
Information, Science and Technology Agency
865 Yates Street Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4
phone: (250)356-7368 fax:(250)356-7368
email address: Bruno.Lindner@gems5.gov.bc.ca


Message #32

Date: Feb 20 2000 23:01:09 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: RE: Production Goals

Dear Dick

While I cannot comment specifically on production goals for filming based on the categories which you have listed, the following comments may be of some assistance...

Preparation

Image Services staff have found that the task which has the greatest variation in time is that of preparation of the originals. The major impact on overall preparation times is the condition of originals eg fragile, crumbling, brittle pages, 'transparent' leaves, whether originals need to be flattened/ironed, repaired, debound, whether extraneous objects such as paper clips, notes etc. need to be removed. These factors are not necessarily dependent on the age of an item. The Library has therefore prepared inhouse costing systems/production goals based on 'levels' of complexity of preparing/filming items (eg 'level 1' requires no preparation, 'level 7' requires 18 hours of preparation time).

Filming

Filming times may also vary according to factors such as:

A number of these factors may indicate the need to take multiple exposures (and hence increase filming time).

Comment on production rates Filming Accuracy and quality are critical.

As an example of average filming rates our section has found that it is possible for an experienced operator to accurately film 2 'recent' tabloid newspapers of 900 single frames on 100 ft. reels (prepared as single sheets) within a period of 7.5 hours, including requirements for multiple exposures.

With yellowing, fragile items and/or archival originals it may take one day to film a reel.

Processing rates

These will vary according to the speed of the processor. For example, the bench top Prostar has a processing rate of 11 minutes.

Inspections

As a general rule we have found that inspection time reduces proportionally according to investment in areas such as the:

And naturally... greater the number of problems the greater the inspection time!

Inspection time would also depend upon the 'levels' of inspection undertaken. As a guideline, Image Services staff have found that a detailed inspection of a 100 ft. reel of 900 frames which includes frame by frame checking for defects, measuring of resolution, and density, recording any corrective action required can take from 45 minutes to one hour.

I hope that these general comments may help a little.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
Ph: 61 8 82077317 Fax: 61 8 82077274
Email:heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #31

Date: Feb 16 2000 16:08:37 EST
From: McCormack Myriam <myriam.mccormack@nlc-bnc.ca
Subject: Scanning & microfilming

Hello,

Are you using a Zeutschel scanner and/or microfilm camera? How do you like it? Are you satisfied with the scanned product? I am particularly interested in the application that would yield a scanned image and a microfilm (for preservation purposes) in one operation.

Myriam McCormack

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions
CIHM/ICMH
myriam.mccormack@nlc-bnc.ca
phone: (613) 232-3472


Message #30 deleted


Message #29

Date: Feb 14 2000 14:25:16 EST
From: "Dick Harrington" <rharring@vsla.edu
Subject: Production Goals

Greetings everyone! I'm new to the list, but would like any input you might have on the following. I'm attempting to evaluate the production goals for preservation filming and scanning we have established and would like to know what yours are for the following categories:

Please stipulate if per hour or per day and whether for filming or scanning or both.

  1. loose papers prior to 1900
  2. loose papers after 1900
  3. bound books prior to 1900
  4. bound books after 1900
  5. take apart/ loose leaf type books
  6. number of 100 foot 35mm film reels processed
  7. number of 100 foot 16mm film reels processed
  8. number of 100 foot 35mm film reels inspected
  9. number of 100 foot 16mm film reels inspected
  10. number of scanned images inspected (or if done as part of production, include with production goal)

Dick Harrington

The Library of Virginia
800 East Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23219
rharring@vsla.edu
Tel: 804 236-3701
Fax: 804 236-3722


Message #28

Date: Feb 13 2000 01:05:45 EST
From: aghowell@ozemail.com.au
Subject: Zeutschel Omniscan 7000 scanner

Following on from the thread on Zeutschel microfilm cameras, I am interested in any comments or information that list members may have on the Zeutschel Omniscan 7000 large-format (AO) scanner.

It is featured at http://www.zeutschel.com/os7000.htm

I would be particularly interested to hear from any users of this equipment, which appears to have applicability to the scanning of bound broadsheet newspapers.

I am researching my contribution to the IFLA symposium on "Managing the preservation of periodicals and newspapers (Paris, August 20-24 2000). All information received will be appropriately acknowledged.

Regards

Alan G Howell
7 Bath Place
PORT MELBOURNE 3020 Australia
Telephone: +61 (03) 9646 7446
Mobile: 041 834 9601
Facsimile: +61 (03) 9646 7646
Email: aghowell@ozemail.com.au


Message #27

Date: Feb 12 2000 23:53:46 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: RE: Zeutschel hybrid microfilm camera/scanner

Julie

The Image Services section of the State Library of South Australia has recently purchased a Zeutschel camera. At this stage, the camera/scanner head is beyond our budget but , like your organisation, we would also be interested to hear if anyone has tried it out.

To assist in evaluating a number of excellent cameras on the market, the Image Services staff formulated some basic selection criteria. Let me know if you would like a copy.

Heather Brown

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of SA
Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
Ph: 61 8 82077317
Fax: 61 8 82077274
Email: heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au


Message #26

Date: Feb 11 2000 15:09:30 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Microfilming specifications

Hi Linda,

as a commercial bureau in NZ I've been involved in this sort of work over here. The tendency in NZ is for a desire toward digital images to minimise staff file retrieval time and maximise access facilities for their customers. It is often investigated with a totally underestimated budget for the costs. Regrettably with smaller org's microfilm is put up only as an archival secondary initiative - altho often it is already part of the property files and needs to be considered as part of the project.

My main point is you can:

  1. film only;
  2. film and scan at the same time; or
  3. digitise first and film soon after as part of the capture process.

Filming is cheapest but offers single user access usually at one office.

Film and scan is more expensive but opens up access - YOU ARE ALSO buying into the need for a variant of a Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). You may have the system to handle this already.

To digitise first then undertake image cleanup prior to output direct to Archival quality microfilm seems to be the way of the future. The point about an EDMS still applies of course. It's cheaper than the second option and quality control at the camera is eliminated (ie automatic) - there are no skewed images, you can create pos or neg (16mm) masters, no light

problems on the "odd" image, indexing of the images on the film is extensive and automatic.... The Kodak Digital Archive Writer (DAW4800) is an example of such a machine. The only issue might be large format drawings - but if a small subset of the job this might be handled by 35mm rollfilm/Aperture Card. Technically they can handle A1+ drawings at ~175dpi (~50x RR) but I would like to see the quality of fine text before recommending that.

If costs are too high you can embark on option one and scan from film later but from someone who runs a Preservation Microfilm Bureau I find the DAW principle quite attractive in terms of facilitating preservation and wider access.

Either way - your space-saving will be enormous!

rgds, Andy Fenton


Message #25

Date: Feb 11 2000 01:39:42 EST From: "Wulf Linda"
Subject: Microfilming specifications

GCCC is about to embark on a significant microfilming project for a backlog of building application files. It is intended to seeking an EOI or quotations for the work from external service providers. Obviously we will be specifying QSA standards as part of the spec documents.

I'm interested in knowing whether other Councils have taken this path recently and have any advice, or are even willing to share their spec documents with GCCC?

I'm intending to investigate hybrid "filming/scanning" so we can have digital images as well as microfilm images, to expand our base of electronic documents. Does anyone know of other organisations that have investigated this option?

Any information will be greatly appreciated, regards, Linda Wulf

COORDINATOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, GCCC

PH: 07 55 828.466 lwulf@goldcoast.qld.gov.au


Message #24

Date: Feb 10 2000 09:47:11 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: Film Cleaning Solvent

Several weeks ago, I received a sample of hydronaphtha from Lipsner-Smith...supplier of film cleaning machines to Hollywood, Omni-Max and I-Max. The container label states it is "cleaner for photographic film emulsions". This wording is not technically correct, I believe they mean cleaner for silver-gelatin films...not emulsions. This chemical has a CAS Number of 64742-48-9. It smells similar to dry-cleaning solvent and, while I have not yet tried it, according to Lipsner-Smith, it works well for hand cleaning microfilm.

Robert Mottice


Message #23

Date: Feb 10 2000 09:43:44 EST
From: Julie Bullock <jbullock@mdah.state.ms.us
Subject: Zeutschel hybrid microfilm camera/scanner

After hearing rave reviews from the NEDCC about the Zeutschel microfilm cameras, we are seriously considering working one into our budget. I was wondering if anyone has tried their new hybrid microfilm camera/scanner head. We have not yet received a copy of the specifications, and we need more information before budgeting for such an expensive piece of equipment.

Many thanks in advance for any insights that could be offered, Julie Bullock

Reformatting Unit
Mississippi Department of Archives and History


Message #22

Date: Feb 09 2000 15:38:12 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: RE: Film cleaner

University Microfilms used to purchase 1,1,1 trichloroethane in 50 gallon drums before it's effects on the ozone layer were known. It is the best solvent for cleaning film aside from carbon tetrachloride which was banned many years ago for health reasons.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned production of 1,1,1 trichloroethane (also called methyl chloroform) several years ago. We have been using recycled solvent for the last two or three years and it is extremely expensive...a tremendous "sin" tax has been added by the government.

One must be careful using recycled solvents as they may be of questionable purity and contain contaminants.

We have been weaning ourselves away from it by trying denatured alcohol and propanol. The denatured seems to evaporate more rapidly than the propanol. They both clean well!

As I type, a state-of-the-art Lipsner-Smith film cleaning machine is being built for us. It will use hydrofluoroether in a completely enclosed environment. Virtually none will leave the machine. It is effective though only when heated and used ultrasonically. It does not have nearly as much solvent power as the 1,1,1 trichloroethane and is not very useful for hand cleaning.

While perchloroethylene evaporates slowly and has a terrible smell, it will clean film adequately.

In summary, I would suggest reagent grade denatured alcohol but extinguish all flames first!!!

Robert Mottice


Message #21

Date: Feb 08 2000 04:02:39 EST
From: pgriffit@liswa.wa.gov.au
Subject: Re: Film cleaner

Sorry, left off the 1,1,1 Trichlororthane, this is important. Looking at the chemical safety data sheet online, the film cleaner sold by Aust. Photo Supplies contains different chemicals to the Kodak film cleaner.

Pat Griffiths


Message #20

Date: Feb 08 2000 01:27:03 EST
From: pgriffit@liswa.wa.gov.au
Subject: Re: Film cleaner

The Kodak film cleaner which is marked on the bottles is made up of 100% Trichloroethane UN No 2831. Our Senior Conservator said you should be able to buy from any chemical supplier.

Good luck

Pat Griffiths

The Library and Information Service of WA.


Message #19

Date: Feb 07 2000 16:45:44 EST
From: Services_Image/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Film cleaner

The staff of Image Services , SLSA would like to hear from anyone who can recommend a film cleaner We used to purchase a liquid film cleaner from Australian Photo Supplies ,a Kodak co. However the last order we received was supposedly the same product but in an aerosol can. This format is not very satisfactory to us, so if anyone can recommend another product that does a good job of cleaning superficial marks from microfilm , could they please let us know.

Beverly Kozel
Image Services
State Library SA
Aust.


Message #18

Date: Feb 04 2000 20:10:54 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Microfilm storage and vacuum sealing

I cannot speak to vacuum sealing however I would like to make yet another plea for proper microfilm storage conditions. Granted, polyester based microfilm is the only true "archival" storage method at this time but all too often it is not stored at low humidity. Since there is a host of uncontrollable contaminants in the environment that attack the silver image, the only hope of preventing such attack is to keep relative humidity in the 20 to 30% range. Unfortunately, these conditions are seldom met. Good luck with your vacuum packaging techniques.

Robert Mottice

Technology & Quality Control
Bell & Howell/Information and Learning (formerly UMI)
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103


Message #17

Date: Jan 31 2000 23:46:10 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Vacuum Sealing

Liam Ryan,

Problems with moisture in books/documents/newspapers will only occur when the items have a high moisture at the time of vacuum sealing. Once the bag is sealed, no other matter or gasses will enter or escape. It is now a closed environment and problems with the items giving off gasses or receiving gasses from the bag itself will be slowed down, but not totally eliminated.

One thing to remember is that the microfilm copy is the long term archival copy and the original hard copy then becomes the backup or legal copy. Vacuum packing is not a preservation method when used without microfilming first. Consideration needs to be given as to whether the originals are important in their own right or simply the 'contents'.

If the originals are important in their own right then other methods of preserving the original need to be considered.

Michael Veitch
Conservation Officer
State Library of South Australia
Ph: 61 8 82077314
Fax: 08 82077274
Email:conserv@slsa.sa.gov.au

******************************************

ListOwner's comment:

Would any list subscribers from countries with high humidity care to add further comments to Liam's request below?

For example the National Library of Singapore has utilised vacuum sealing.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia
Ph: 61 8 82077317 Fax: 61 8 82077274 Email: heatherb@slsa.sa.gov.au

********************************************

Michael,

Can vacuum sealing create problems with books/documents that have absorbed moisture from the general environment, such as in high humidity area, by then sweating inside the plastic vacuum seal?

Liam Ryan l.ryan@unisec.unimelb.edu.au


Message #16

Date: Jan 27 2000 00:17:18 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: Vacuum Packing

Thinking beyond the square - and having misplaced your original message, my apologies...

Is vacuum packing essential to your needs?

For the record we use/recommend acid-free tissue - double layered - to protect our disbound volumes for several clients.

Key supporting assumptions are:

I appreciate our climate a little more temperate in general here in NZ.

You would be surprised at how robust the tissue can be - particularly for papers removed from or in soft bindings. If the covers are hard we usually wrap and label the loose papers as above and insert the package into the covers.

The perceived benefit is similar to your reasons for vacuum packing, also letting the "conditioned" climate get at the papers over time. Further the bindings are often the worst quality (full of lignin acid etc) and so removing these if they are of little historical value can be beneficial.

kind regards, Andy Fenton

PS. There was a good article in a (?) book of speeches called "Preservation Microfilming - Does it have a future?" Produced by your Nat Preservation Office - first national conference I think - back in 95 or 97. A Canadian State or National Microfilm Unit were vacuum sealing and freezing Master microforms (not papers) - but maybe there are parallels you can draw??


Message #15

Date: Jan 26 2000 22:53:32 EST
From: Deirdre Burgess <dburgess@nla.gov.au
Subject: Lease of coldstorage space

I am presently looking at the effects of a GST on charging for services and I am interested in hearing from any Australian institution which currently leases coldstorage space to clients for storage of microform. In particular I would like to know how much is charged and how the figure was derived.

Thanking you.

Deirdre Burgess

Manager
Preservation Reformatting Unit
National Library of Australia
Phone: 02 6262 1564
email: dburgess@nla.gov.au


Message #14

Date: Jan 24 2000 01:26:25 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: Vacuum Packing

We use a Vacuum sealing unit in Conservation Services section of the State Library of South Australia.

Vacuum packing of large items can be of help after they have been microfilmed because they are easier to handle.

The main advantages are:

which assists shelving afterwards.

One of the problems with vacuum packing is that the bags sometimes fail due to bad handling practices or poor sealing. This leads to the books or papers expanding back to their 'normal' size. This can be a problem if the shelving has been packed densely and the expanding volume can 'lock solid' surrounded by other volumes.

A related problem is training staff to the skill levels required to get a good result. It took a significant time to train our staff to perfect the best technique.

Michael Veitch: Conservation Officer State Library of South Australia


Message #13

Date: Jan 20 2000 01:03:05 EST
From: Korhonen Lauri <Lauri.Korhonen@dcilgp.qld.gov.au
Subject: Computer Output Microfiche

Has anyone had a lot of dealings with the quality inspection of microfiche produced by COM recorders. ISO standards 8514/1 and 2 go to quite some detail explaining the methods and the characteristics of the test slides and test data to be used. Then it also states that the standard only applies to COM recorders that use a physical form slide which enables you input the information to perform and record the relevant test results. Where my main concern lies is with the fact that if a COM recorder has not got this facility to produce test data results for resolution etc, are we left to only inspect the COM image quality visually through a microscope without the technical information.

lauri.korhonen@dcilgp.qld.gov.au Queensland State Archives


Message #12

Date: Jan 20 2000 00:16:47 EST
From: pgriffit@liswa.wa.gov.au
Subject: Re: FW: kodak systems cleaner

Robert

You mentioned that you'have all but stopped using this toxic chemical', can you give us an alternative to this product.

Pat Griffiths

TeamLeader, Micrographics
The Library and Information Service of Western Australia


Message #11

Date: Jan 19 2000 19:55:20 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: A request for help/info

Hi Tracy

Please advise the dimensions of the volumes and the direction of lines of text. Do they need to be read across the opening or is single page okay?

Are they using 35mm or 16mm?

Kind regards

Andy Fenton


Message #10

Date: Jan 19 2000 18:56:30 EST
From: tbradford@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: A request for help/info

Good morning

My name is Tracy Bradford and I am the Council Archivist at Parramatta City Council.

I am currently having a series of Council Rate Books microfilmed and have run into a bit of a snag. The volumes vary in the size, and the ones currently with the company that does our filming are very large. The company has advised us that the quality of the last batch of films is not up to scratch because the volumes are so the large and the image on the film is small and difficult to read. They have suggested we take the binding off the volumes so they can film the pages in a way that will produce a more satisfactory end product. They then suggest the original volumes be vacuum sealed as alternative to rebinding them.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had a similar problem, and who can advise on the merits etc. of vacuum sealing, etc. Any advice or information would be appreciated.

Thanks in anticipation

Tracy Bradford

Parramatta City Council

Visit our Web Site : http://www.ParraCity.nsw.gov.au


Message #9

Date: Jan 18 2000 16:52:39 EST
From: "Andrew Fenton" <afenton@micrographics.co.nz
Subject: Re: kodak systems cleaner

Limited Life. Kodak Spec sheets suggest the Cleaner (not the Neutraliser) loses it's effectiveness (once diluted) after two weeks.

From a practical perspective...

Dangerous. This stuff is excellent for the task it is designed, but the very toxic nature of the chemistry means I prefer not to leave it hanging around - but my tanks are big enough that I don't have to mix part bottles.

Cost-ineffective to re-cycle. Clearly the option to safely re-use the Systems Cleaner is purely a chemical management one. However, for the effort involved in decanting to re-usable (sealed) containers plus storing them carefully - they would have to be dated and the number of uses recorded - versus the price of the product it hardly seems worth the labour to re-cycle! (Particularly with the two week life-span)

Ecology. That leaves the ecological factor - less quantities down the drain through re-use. I imagine this is countered by the quantities of heavy metals etc you are adding through repeated use.

Alternative Cleaner. With smaller (Prostar equivalent) processors I found that by fresh water rinsing racks and tanks after 2-3hours processing - depending on film type - and (carefully) using "scotchbrite"-type scrubbers (elbow grease) I could minmise use of the Systems Cleaner. Hoses of course can be replaced!

Droll ANZAC Comment. In New Zealand of course we have an abundance of (soft) fresh water.

kind regards

Andy Fenton


Message #8

Date: Jan 18 2000 09:45:36 EST
From: "Mottice, Robert" <robert.mottice@bellhowell.infolearning.com
Subject: FW: kodak systems cleaner

Following are e-ddresses for two persons at Eastman Kodak that should be very helpful.

Elmer.Tucshong@Kodak.com

Robert.Breslawski@Kodak.com

Before the days of heavy environmental regulation, we used sizeable quantities of Kodak Developer Systems Cleaner. We have all but stopped using this highly toxic chemical because our effluent is monitored for chrome as well as other heavy metals.

Question: Are you using the term "recycling" to mean chemically regenerating or are you simply referring to using the diluted solution until it is no longer effective? I know of no way to chemically regenerate the solution. You can use the solution over and over until it becomes murky looking.

There are two chemical reactions which degrade the activity. One is the loss of acidity by introducing alkaline developer and the other is related to the quantity of deposits being removed from processor racks, rollers, etc. To prolong the life of the cleaner, processor parts-to-be-cleaned should be thoroughly rinsed free of developer with hot water. With no developer present, the life of the cleaner should be directly proportional to the quantity of deposited silver and possible hard water deposits to be removed.

Hopefully this has been helpful.

Regards,

Robert Mottice
Director, Technology & Quality Control
Bell & Howell/Information and Learning (formerly UMI)


Message #7

Date: Jan 18 2000 00:20:29 EST
From: Services_Image/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: kodak systems cleaner

Our query involves the recycling of Kodak Dev. systems cleaner. Has anyone experience in doing this, and if so how many times can it be done, and how long can it be kept before it loses its effectiveness. A staff member has said that this is possible , but we would like to hear any other experiences.

The product is Kodak System Cleaner and Neutralizer Cat. no.4016184

Beverly Kozel, Image Services State Library of SA Australia Ph.no. 08 82077327


Message #6

Date: Jan 12 2000 19:16:49 EST
From: Brown_Heather/SLSA@dino.slsa.sa.gov.au
Subject: MICROLINK

This message inaugurates the MICROLINK Discussion List.

The list has evolved as a result of networking between preservation microfilming practitioners within Australasia and globally. It is designed as a forum for the exchange of issues and ideas amongst practitioners and those interested in the field of preservation microfilming. People connected with the specialised field of preservation microfilming share the common purpose of preserving the memory of the world. The sharing of information and expertise will ultimately enhance this process for the benefit of current practitioners and future generations of users.

Thanks are due to colleagues whose informal networking within commercial bureaux, libraries and archives across Australasia and internationally has provided the foundations for this list.

Special thanks are due to the following people and organisations for their encouragement and support during the trialling process:

The staff of the Image Services team (State Library of South Australia) Sue Lewis, Acting Director, Margaret Allen, Associate Director and the State Library of South Australia for providing practical support for this project.

A suggested list of topics which could be addressed forms part of the background information to the list. Let us now see what develops.

Heather Brown
Manager, Image Services
State Library of South Australia Box 419 GPO
Adelaide 5001
South Australia