Silver halide microfilm MAY last 500 years if it is manufactured, processed, and stored properly.

The question of how long CD’s will last, or how long they will be readable, appears to have migrated to the issue of Microfilm and its good and bad points.

As stated in the subject header:

Silver halide microfilm MAY last five hundred years if it is manufactured, processed, and stored properly.

The operative word in this statement is, MAY.

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER!

Microfilm is no exception. I have known of Acetate microfilm, which has become useless “non usable, nontransferable, non-retrievable” after less than 20 years of use. Its only value was to a rubbish bin as the emulsion had separated from the acetate substrata and on viewing images as small as single characters, e.g., an A could be seen floating on a sea of liquid silver particles.

Why?

Acetate film is inherently unstable. See various articles on “Vinegar Syndrome”. You may care to visit this site @ IPI – Image Permanence Institute – Rochester Institute of Technology for more information. There is more information available if you go to Google and ask the question “Vinegar Syndrome”.

I was not previously aware of this Vinegar Syndrome issue and up until 1998, I was, as a commercial bureau operator, still using Tri-Acetate film, as my film of choice. The film was available from Fuji and Agfa at that time and still is.

The rules for the long-term preservation of microfilm, which are storage at low temperature, 8-12 degrees Celsius, 30-40% relative humidity and darkness, are not the normal environment in which we find microfilm being housed, and or used.

It is not that CD’s are better than Microfilm, or that Microfilm is better than any other media. The question is what is the best media for my application, and do I understand the capabilities and limitations of the media I choose?

There are horror stories related to paper, film, microfilm, floppy disk, hard disks, Optical Disks, CD’s etc. etc. that should not have occurred had we been aware of the capabilities, and or limitations of the media in question and its particular environmental requirements for long-term (LE) preservation.

We now have the answer with Polyester Microfilm, or do we? We know that polyester is extremely stable, but I would bet my last dollar that in time to come we will have a horror story or two to tell because we believe polyester film is the ultimate media. The polyester substrata or base material may be the ultimate because of its stability but what about the adhesion or binder material, which holds the emulsion to the substrata and what about the stability of the silver gelatin emulsion.

OK, the polyester substrate does not shrink or expand to any degree with varying temperatures and relative humidity, but guess what, the binder and the emulsion do. What happens when the tensions between these two are so great that the binder and the emulsion layers tear themselves away from the indestructible polyester substrate?

Let us not argue, if microfilm is, or is indestructible, no, it is not, nor can it be as everything has a finite lifespan. Nothing lasts forever!

We need to be aware of microfilm’s capabilities and its limitations and make certain we do our best to preserve the media and more importantly, the information contained to suit our needs.

My ten cents worth!

Laurie Varendorff ARMA

The Author

Laurie Varendorff, ARMA, a former RMAA Western Australia Branch president & national director, has been involved in records management and the micrographic industry for 37 years. Laurie has his own microfilm equipment sales & support organisation – Digital Microfilm Equipment – DME – and a – records & information management – RIM – consulting & training business – The Varendorff Consultancy – TVC – located near Perth, Western Australia, & has tutored & written course material in recordkeeping & archival storage & preservation for Perth’s Edith Cowan University – ECU. Phone: +618 9286 3705; mobile: +61 417 094 147; email @ Laurie Varendorff

The author, Laurie Varendorff gives permission for the redistribution or republishing of this article by individuals and nonprofit professional organisations without cost based on the condition that he as well as the URL of the article are recognised at the introduction of the article when redistributed or republished.

SPECIAL NOTE: Use of this article by publishers, commercial, government, or educational organisations requires a financial agreement to be negotiated with Laurie as the copyright holder for this work.

How does one know if one’s scanner is doing its thing, correctly?

How does one know that the courts will accept one’s scanned images if one is not keeping a daily record of the scanner’s performance?

How does one know that the images scanned are a true facsimile of the original?

Since 1988, YES 1988!

There has been a standard for the evaluation of Document Image Scanners.

That standard is the ANSI/AIIM MS44-1988 – Recommended Practice for Quality Control of Image Scanners, a 19-page document which, on my reading may be getting a little dated 13 years out from its inception, but still a CRITICAL document.

Who was involved with the creation of this standard?

Access Corp, AT&T Bell Labs, Bell &Amp; Howell, Canon USA Inc, Eastman Kodak, File Net Corp, Library of Congress, 3M Company, Nara-National Archives & Records Administration, Smithsonian Archives, Unisys, US Army, Wang Lab, Crowley – Wicks & Wilson & The Xerox Corporation.

These are only some of the parties represented as the list goes on & on.

Why is it that some 13 years after the creation of this standard that I hear laughter when I advise people of the availability of a Resolution Test Target for Scanners that I am marketing to the Australian Market?

I hear this laughter from people who should know better.

How can one possible prove that the processes that one uses every day in ones capture of incoming correspondence if one does not have in place a process to check on the operation of one’s scanner and to document that process for future needs should one be required to prove the validity of ones scanned images.

The Australian Standard AS4390 calls for a record to be inviolate; section 5.3 Full and accurate records: Records should be full and accurate to the extent necessary to- (viii) Inviolate Records must etc. and that; No information in a record should be deleted, altered, or lost once the transaction that it documents has occurred.

How can one possibly meet this AS4390 requirement if one is uncertain that the information scanned into the organisations records and information system is not checked to be certain that no data is lost at the point of input at the scanner and a detailed record of the process recorded as required by MS44-1988?

On the day in question was my scanner up to scratch? Was it running on two cylinders instead of the required eight?

Had the settings been altered down to 75 X 75 DPI without my knowledge from my usual 300 X 300 DPI?

Has the lamp been deteriorating over time and is now at a point where the image looks OK on a monitor but loses data when I print it out?

The list of possible variabilities and potential failures goes on ad infinitum.

Laurie Varendorff ARMA

The Author

Laurie Varendorff, ARMA, a former RMAA Western Australia Branch president & national director, has been involved in records management and the micrographic industry for 37 years.

Laurie has his own microfilm equipment sales & support organisation – Digital Microfilm Equipment – DME – and a – records & information management – RIM – consulting & training business – The Varendorff Consultancy – TVC – located near Perth, Western Australia, & has tutored & written course material in recordkeeping & archival storage & preservation for Perth’s Edith Cowan University – ECU. Phone: +618 9286 3705; mobile: +61 417 094 147; email @ Laurie Varendorff

Please Note: This article has recently been reproduced with permission in the publication – inFocus – The Quarterly Journal of PRISM International in their September 2004 Edition on page (22).

The author, Laurie Varendorff gives permission for the redistribution or republishing of this article by individuals and nonprofit professional organisations without cost based on the condition that he as well as the URL of the article are recognised at the introduction of the article when redistributed or republished.

SPECIAL NOTE: Use of this article by publishers, commercial, government, or educational organisations requires a financial agreement to be negotiated with Laurie as the copyright holder for this work.

Microfiche v Microfilm – June 2001

I have copied some of this information below from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

I believe this information to be close to accurate but limited in its explanation.

First my version:

Microfiche – A transparent flat rectangular sheet of microfilm, of dimensions 105 mm X 148 mm or other dimensions e.g., 3 x 5 inches or 4 x 6 inches plus, having several micro images arranged in a grid pattern in horizontal rows and vertical columns. It usually contains a title which can be read without magnification by an external device. The word ‘microfiche’ is used both as singular and plural. SOURCE – Based on the Australian Standard 2422-1981 plus some of my own additional input.

Microfiche is used for the publication of reports, technical memoranda, and similar documents to fulfil the increasing need for recording a greater number of pages on a single sheet of film. The aim has been to make provision for 60-frame and 98-frame formats suitable for documents to the A series as specified in ISO 216, Writing paper and certain classes of Printed Matter – Trimmed Sizes A and B series.

SOURCE – Australian Standard 1988-1977.

Microfiche can be a product from a Computer Output Device producing COM Microfiche at various reduction ratios but usually 24, 42, 48 and 72X = times reductions from digital data.

Microfiche is also produced by Step and Repeat Cameras from hard copy originals American, 8 1/2 X 11 inch or metric 210 mm X 297 mm A4 size paper to American, 11 X 17 inch or metric 297 mm X 420 mm A3 size at 24x or other low reduction rations. Other higher reductions of 42X and 48X and in some limited cases at 72X reduction are used to cram more images onto the 105 mm x 148 mm sheet film. The Australian Standard and I believe the International and US Standard only suggest filming on Step and Repeat cameras at a maximum of a 24X reduction for A4 and A3 size documentation.

There are larger format Step and Repeat Cameras specifically designed for large format documentation such as drawings, maps and plans up to metric A0 size at 941 mm X 1189 mm or American, E size drawings.

Microfilm Cameras to produce roll film can usually do any of the things Step and Repeat Cameras can perform but with an output onto roll film 16 or 35 mm in width by 30.3 metre or one hundred foot in length rather than 105 mm x 148 mm sheet film. Step and Repeat Cameras and COM units also work from 105 mm rolls of film either in lengths of 1,000 or 2,000-foot rolls.

Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

fiche n. See microfiche.

microfiche n. A small sheet of film, about 4 by 6 inches, used for recording photographically reduced images, such as document pages, in rows and columns forming a grid pattern. The resulting images are too small to read with the naked eye, and a microfiche reader is required to view the documents.

microfilm n. A thin strip of film stored on a roll and used to record sequential data images. As with microfiche, a special device magnifies the images so that they can be read. See also CIM (definition 2), COM (definition 4).

microform n. The medium, such as microfilm or microfiche, on which a photographically reduced image, called a micro image, is stored. A micro image usually represents text, such as archived documents. See also microfiche, microfilm.

micrographics n. The techniques and methods for recording data on microfilm. See also microform.

micro image n. A photographically reduced image, usually stored on microfilm or microfiche that is too small to be read without magnification. See also microform, micrographics.

Laurie Varendorff ARMA

The Author

Laurie Varendorff, ARMA, a former RMAA Western Australia Branch president & national director, has been involved in records management and the micrographic industry for 37 years. Laurie has his own microfilm equipment sales & support organisation – Digital Microfilm Equipment – DME – and a – records & information management – RIM – consulting & training business – The Varendorff Consultancy – TVC – located near Perth, Western Australia, & has tutored & written course material in recordkeeping & archival storage & preservation for Perth’s Edith Cowan University – ECU. Phone: +618 9286 3705; mobile: +61 417 094 147; email @ Laurie Varendorff

The author, Laurie Varendorff gives permission for the redistribution or republishing of this article by individuals and nonprofit professional organisations without cost based on the condition that he as well as the URL of the article are recognised at the introduction of the article when redistributed or republished.

SPECIAL NOTE: Use of this article by publishers, commercial, government, or educational organisations requires a financial agreement to be negotiated with Laurie as the copyright holder for this work.