Why Microfilm Matters in a Digital World Joe Konrath Product Manager, Preservation Microfilm Joan Corkran Project Manager, Preservation Microfilm

Microfilm! Can you think of a better way to securely backup paper records? Or a better way to preserve print collections? How about another medium to use to make collections accessible to researchers? Yes, microfilm was the king! It was inexpensive, duplicates could be easily created and it was an exact representation of the original paper document. Oh, and did I mention longevity?

Can we say the same thing today Can we say the same thing today? Years later (ok, maybe decades), digitization of collections has, in some respects, become the norm. It costs about the same as microfilming but the real savings are the easy distribution of the images and the fact that everyone has a PC which allows for easy access to the information.   So, should we just do away with microfilm? I think there are a few, perhaps many, that believe microfilm still has its place!

If you want something that you can put on a shelf and not have to worry about format migration or continued funding, your long-term options are basically microfilm or stone tablets.

However attractive digitization may be in our current technological environment, there may be value in its hard-working counterpart, microfilm.   It may not seem obvious at first, since we have been told that digitization has replaced microfilm as the more current and valuable media. Part of the popularity of digital images is in increased speed and ease of access to current data for public consumption. Part of its success is also due to the power of technological advances to woo us into new markets, and we have been wooed very well. What if all your historical records were digitized? Doesn’t this sound like the proper tech savvy way to manage valuable records for the indefinite future?

Unfortunately, we tend to minimize the risk that “archived” digital files can and do become corrupted, unstable or even lost, risking the validity of recorded history. Most CDs and DVDs have a media life of 5-10 years. Does anyone still have information stored on a floppy disk? How many backups in how many locations are necessary to preserve these records? How much will it cost to continuously upgrade hardware and software for the next ten years? The digitization world is trying to address all of these problems. The solution isn’t there yet, and it’s likely to require a lot of maintenance over time.

Preservation Standards Amidst the bells and whistles of the digital revolution, preservation microfilming quietly maintains its status as a highly valued and widely practiced preservation reformatting strategy. And why not?   When created and stored according to industry standards published by the Library of Congress, The Research Library Group (RLG), and American National Standards Institute (ANSI), microfilm boasts a life expectancy of 500+ years. Just like for print media, secured storage vaults can be used to maintain microfilm reels under ideal conditions. In 1992, ANSI & AIIM did extensive testing to determine microfilm life expectancy. They reported that these results were under- rather than overestimated for film longevity.

Comparing preservation DIGITAL MICROFILM LIFESPAN Relies on continued funding 500 years MAINTENANCE Fixity checks, backup copies, migration A cool, dry place RETRIEVAL Hardware, software, network A light and a lens It is also worth noting that, while digital data require use of a sophisticated retrieval system to access their treasures, microforms (i.e., microfilm and microfiche) can be read by the naked eye using only light and magnification.

At Backstage, we house close to 200,000 reels of 16mm and 35mm microfilm and also several thousand microfiche that were created as long as decades ago or as recently as, literally, last week.

ANSI PH1.43-1985 "Temperature must not exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit and must not fluctuate more than 5 degrees during any 24 hour period. The rel­ative humidity must not exceed 40% and must not fluctuate more than 5% during any 24 hour period." Film at Backstage is stored onsite, in the custom-built microfilm vault. The vault is equipped with its own environmental systems and controls designed to provide optimal storage conditions for silver halide microfilm.   The hu­midity is maintained at 35% rela­tive humidity plus or minus 2%. Temperature is maintained at 60ºF plus or minus 2 degrees. The vault is equipped with smoke and rate of rise heat detectors, a dry-pipe fire suppression system, complete air filtration, and for security, a motion detection system and limited entry electronic access control. All systems are monitored remotely 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Records for temperature and/or humidity can be produced for any time for any day.

The access potential of microforms admittedly pales in comparison with that of digital technology. Still, microforms can enhance access to information that would otherwise be unavailable because the original item is at a distant site or is vulnerable to damage and/or loss through handling. Any film stored in the proper environment will last for centuries.

Why microfilm? Image integrity 500-year lifespan Low cost to maintain Archival source for digitization Options for future use The original LOCKSS plan Minimal storage space Do I digitize or microfilm?   If someone would ask me to be an advocate for using microfilm to preserve print collections, how would I answer that question since it is no longer the primary means of access, I would answer by stating: Microfilm cannot be edited, modified, or amended. It produces the exact image of the original and it is legally accepted in state and local governments. 2. As discussed earlier, microform can last for 500 years when stored under proper conditions. 3. After microfilm is created, there are no long-standing costly technology-driven maintenance or upgrade fees to safeguard and guarantee its preservation AND accessibility. 4. Once created, the intellectual knowledge is preserved. To enhance the access of those images, microfilm can be scanned to produce digital images at any time. 5. Microfilm can be duplicated, scanned, or stored. 6. The LOCKSS plan was started at Stanford University and it means “Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe”. For disasters or emergencies, microfilm collections are not usually stored in the same place. Therefore, it potentially can be a safer medium than either paper or digital images. 7. Microfilm takes up minimal space. Let’s look at this very real example.

417,335 issues 17,562,203 pages 3,484 linear feet Over a 5-year project 417,335 issues 17,562,203 pages 3,484 linear feet We completed a microfilm project for a very large American library in which we filmed a total of 417,335 issues which totaled 17,562,203 pages. 

Each page was hand-placed onto a planetary camera Each page was hand-placed onto a planetary camera. If each page could have been vertically stacked, one on top of each other, the total height would have reached 3,484 feet. That is about 290 stories. Well, guess what? The empire state building is 1,250 feet/103 stories. So, if the newspaper could be stacked vertically, the linear feet equivalent would equate to the height of just less than 3 empire state buildings.

4,738 cubic feet or 91 tons of newsprint converted to… For the project that I just mentioned over 91 tons or 4,738 cubic feet of material was filmed. Those 4,738 cubic feet of material were converted to 292 cubic feet of microfilm reels.

292 cubic feet of microfilm 94% less space For comparison sake, the microfilm consisted of 94% less space than the material. Most importantly, all intellectual knowledge was preserved for generations and generations to come.

So why did we present this topic to you. It’s to keep an open mind So why did we present this topic to you? It’s to keep an open mind. It’s like fighting for the underdog. There is no denying the advantages in digitization and we do live in a digital world Yes, microfilm is no longer an access medium, but the argument is still ongoing about it being preservation medium. So the answer depends on what you plan to do with your collection? For long-term preservation, microfilm is still arguably the standard and should remain so for years to come. It is well accepted, relatively inexpensive, compact, durable and a true facsimile of the document.

Digitize or microfilm? ACCESS BOTH PRESERVATION Perhaps the ideal solution combines these two technologies: create and store archival microfilm and then scan that film. This provides both preservation AND access and the cost can be less than the cost of scanning directly from the material. The resulting digital images can be viewed at your command providing the necessary access you desire.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 13, 1942 "... it is my hope that it is possible to build up an American public opinion in favor of what might be called the only form of insurance that will stand the test of time. I am referring to duplication of records by modern processes like microfilm so that if in any part of the country original archives are destroyed a record of them will exist in some other place.“ Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 13, 1942 Finally, Franklin D. Roosevelt was quoted in 1942 as saying:   "... it is my hope that it is possible to build up an American public opinion in favor of what might be called the only form of insurance that will stand the test of time. "I am referring to duplication of records by modern processes like microfilm so that if in any part of the country original archives are destroyed a record of them will exist in some other place." --Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 13, 1942 So, if FDR was correct in 1942, perhaps his words may still be valid in 2017?

Questions?

Joe Konrath Product Manager, Preservation Microfilm jkonrath@bslw.com Contact us Joe Konrath Product Manager, Preservation Microfilm jkonrath@bslw.com Joan Corkran Project Manager, Preservation Microfilm jcorkran@bslw.com 1.800.288.1265 | www.bslw.com