The Death of Microfilm [not if the original agreements do not allow the film to be digitized (reproduced)!]
Genealogists
love microfilm. Visit any genealogy library anywhere, and you will see
genealogists in darkened rooms, hunched over microfilm viewers, trying
to solve the puzzles of their family trees. I have taken several
pictures of genealogists sitting at rows of microfilm readers. However, I
suspect that within ten years those pictures will become collectors’
items, recalling an era that exists only as distant memories in the
minds of “the old-timers.” You see, microfilm and microfiche are about
to disappear.Many of the manufacturers of microfilm and microfiche equipment have already disappeared or else have switched their production lines to other products.
The problem is economics: microfilm is expensive. Those who wish to preserve data find it faster, easier, and cheaper to scan documents on computer scanners and then make the information available as disk images than it is to do the same thing on microfilm. Hospitals, insurance companies, government agencies, and others have already made the switch from microfilm to digital imaging. Genealogists are among the very few still using microfilm and even that number is dropping rapidly.
The demand for microfilm and microfiche equipment is dwindling. Without demand, manufacturers no longer can afford to manufacture the necessary equipment. Microfilm cameras and viewers are becoming as uncommon as buggy whips.
Microfilm cameras are almost impossible to purchase today, except perhaps for used units on eBay or at some garage sale. Twenty years ago, Bell and Howell manufactured thousands of microfilm cameras each year. Ten years ago, production had dropped to hundreds per year. Since then, the company has ceased manufacturing microfilm cameras and dropped them from the product catalog, all because of decreasing sales. Most of Bell and Howell’s competitors have also stopped manufacturing microfilm and microfiche equipment.
Without cameras, no one is going to be producing new microfilms. We genealogists are going to be limited to the microfilms that were filmed years ago. However, this assumes that microfilm copying equipment is still available. The fact is that even that even microfilm duplication equipment is disappearing. The duplication equipment already in place requires maintenance and occasional spare parts. Those parts are rapidly becoming unavailable.
Of course, in order to make copies, you also must be able to purchase rolls of unexposed film. I am told that supplies of new film is also disappearing as demand drops. All the major manufacturers of microfilm have dropped out of that business although a few specialty manufacturers still sell new microfilm. Prices for unexposed rolls of microfilm are now four times the price of a few years ago, or higher.
Within a decade, it will be difficult or perhaps impossible to obtain a copy of an old microfilm, even to replace a worn-out copy of a microfilm you already own. Nobody will have the equipment or the rolls of unexposed film with which to make copies!
In addition, making a copy of a microfilm introduces fuzziness, or what the engineers call “visual noise.” Then, making a copy of that copy introduces further loss of image; copying that copy adds still more, and so on and so forth. However, a copy of a digital image is identical to the original. You can make copies of copies of copies of digital images, and each new image is identical to the original with no signal loss. Making and copying digital images is faster, more cost-effective, and easier than doing the same with microfilm.
For years, genealogists have proclaimed that digital images will never replace microfilm because “the media (computer disks, tapes, etc.) doesn’t last long.” CD-ROM disks last only 25 years or so. Floppies don’t even last that long.
The genealogists who make those claims are ignoring one very simple and cost-effective solution: copy the images to new, fresh media every few years. Remember that each digital copy is identical to the original, unlike microfilm. A digital copy of a copy of a copy is still as good as the original.
With images stored on disk, it is almost trivial to copy the images to new disks periodically. If technology changes, such as DVD disks replacing CD disks or Blu-ray disks replacing DVD disks, the old images are simply copied to new media. If file formats change, the old formats are easily converted to whatever new formats become popular.
With that process in place, the life expectancy of digital images becomes almost infinite. In fact, any well-managed data center already makes backup copies on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. If the images are available online, they are already being copied regularly to (new) backup copies. Who cares about the life expectancy of the original disks when you always have a fresh copy on a new disk?
Any archive charged with storing a collection of images will find the periodic copying of digital images to be much cheaper than trying to maintain a large collection of microfilm images. In short, digital imaging ensures that future generations can have the same access that you and I enjoy, something not possible with microfilms.
The next equipment to disappear will be microfilm viewers.
Go to any large genealogy library today, and you will still see rows of microfilm viewers. I hope those libraries take good care of them. Ten or twenty years ago several major companies produced microfilm and microfiche viewers. Several small companies still manufacture viewers today although most of the “big names” in the business have dropped out. The small specialty manufacturers of today cannot depend on genealogists alone for future sales. Sooner or later, they will also drop out as their customer base disappears. I am guessing that you will not be able to purchase a new microfilm viewer ten years from now. Even worse, you won’t even be able to purchase spare parts for the worn-out units your library already owns.
Within the genealogy world, FamilySearch, an arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), has traditionally been the biggest user of microfilm equipment. With this huge investment already made in microfilm, you might expect the LDS Church to continue using microfilm forever. That’s not true, according to numerous announcements made in recent years. FamilySearch is already moving away from microfilm, replacing it as fast as possible with digital images, mostly made from the old microfilms.
The printed books in the Family History Library in Salt Lake City are also being copied to digital images whenever copyright agreements with the authors allow. The result is that many more books are now available (by looking on computer screens) than ever before. The Library simply isn’t big enough to store all the printed copies but storage space is almost a non-issue with digital versions. Even better, the books may be viewed by patrons many thousands of miles away, again where copyright agreements allow.
To be sure, the LDS Church still owns quite few microfilm cameras but no longer uses them to film old records at various locations around the world. Nobody has been able to purchase new cameras for years. The units that were in use kept wearing out, and the original manufacturers no longer sell spare parts. For a while the Mormon Church even contracted with small machine shops to make spare parts for the cameras, but that soon became cost-ineffective.
The LDS Church has now moved to digital imaging. The focus has shifted from microfilm to making digital images on site – in the original repositories – with no microfilm involved. The acquisition teams use a laptop PC and a scanner in much the same manner as you and I do at home, although the scanner is more sophisticated and ruggedized than the typical unit sold to consumers.
A separate activity involves the conversion of the millions of reels of existing microfilm created over the years by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to digital images. That effort has been underway for several years.
To be sure, millions of rolls of microfilm already exist, and they will not disappear overnight. We will continue to see microfilm readers in libraries for several more years. However, as new microfilms become unavailable, replacements of existing microfilms also become unavailable. As the reels of microfilm become scratched from use, replacements will not be available. As the microfilm viewers wear out and replacements are no longer available, the result will be inevitable.
Luckily, digital images are faster, more cost-effective, cheaper, and more practical. With periodic copying, digital images have infinite “shelf life.” They are also easier to “send” to Family History Centers around the world and to other libraries.
The price of a new PC for use by library patrons has now dropped to under $500 while a new microfilm viewer designed for heavy-duty library usage, if you can find one, costs $1,000 or more. Even better, it is relatively cheap to allow library patrons to view digital images from their homes, something that is much more difficult with microfilm. The superior quality and availability, along with the lower cost of production, maintenance, and duplication, are a boon to us genealogists as well as those who follow in our footsteps.
Within a few years, some of us will be telling newcomers, “I remember the good old days when we had to hand-crank microfilm viewers. There was none of this modern stuff where everything appeared on a computer screen.”
Would you please hand me my slippers and cane? I’m going to go sit in my rocking chair and look at my old (digital) pictures of genealogists sitting at rows of microfilm readers.
14 Comments
In an era of digitization, why does NARA continue to microfilm records?
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/microfilming.html
Northeast Document Preservation Center:
http://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/preservation-leaflets/6.-reformatting/6.1-microfilm-and-microfiche
Heritage Archives archival microfilm company: Why Microfilm?
http://www.heritagearchives.org/WhyMicrofilm.aspx
A simple Google search shows dozens of companies selling microfilm, scanners, and related supplies. Millions of rolls of microfilm exist in thousands of archives throughout the world. Microfilm isn’t going to disappear “in a few years.”
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/microfilming.html
Northeast Document Preservation Center:
http://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/preservation-leaflets/6.-reformatting/6.1-microfilm-and-microfiche
Heritage Archives archival microfilm company: Why Microfilm?
http://www.heritagearchives.org/WhyMicrofilm.aspx
A simple Google search shows dozens of companies selling microfilm, scanners, and related supplies. Millions of rolls of microfilm exist in thousands of archives throughout the world. Microfilm isn’t going to disappear “in a few years.”
One holdup to this disappearance of microfilm is whether the
film owners have rights to publish records in a different format. It’s
possible a contract FamilySearch signed 40 years ago only allows for
microfilm reproduction. If the archive isn’t willing to negotiate a new
contract, the only way to view those records externally may be to view
the film copy. Didn’t something similar happen with the old FamilySearch
dos program and the Scotland church records?
You mention the cost savings of digital, but fail to address
the cost to convert existing microfilm records to digital. “A separate
activity involves the conversion of the millions of reels of existing
microfilm created over the years by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints to digital images. That effort has ben underway for
several years.” The deep pockets of LDS enable that to be undertaken.
Most small to mid-size public institutions do not have the time, money,
personnel or resources to undertake that scale of a project.
What is the process to convert microfilm to a digital image, assuming the paper record is no longer available?
I just hope that all the records that currently are only
available on microfilm at the smaller repositories – like county
departments – get digitized before the ability to read the documents
disappears. We recently looked for records at the local Register of
Wills – who had the microfilm but no reader, as their old reader
“broke.” Fortunately, the local library still has a reader (& it’s a
small town, so it was OK to take the microfilm from one building to
another). Unfortunately, before it broke, the old Register’s reader had
badly scratched the emulsion on the film. No one seemed to know if the
records/film had been digitized.
Couple of issues here. One is the challange of getting
documents now onto digitized media from either where the originals are
held or copies. It is not yet clear if a lot of libraries are going to
either convert their holdings, replace the holdings with digital images
or just not do either and eventialy withdraw the microfilm (and the
things on it) from circulation because the present equipment becomes
unrepairable.
There are cases (don’t ask it will cause trouble) where institutions said they copied stuff to microfilm but don’t seem to have done so as it doesn’t appear to exist and then the originals managed to get “recycled”. I shouldn’t even get into the issue of things like developed x-ray film (and other types of film) being processed to reclaim the silver.
Sorry about all the negative waves. Its been an interesting couple of weeks with things like a church cemetery with a beautiful website but you are not going to be allowed to view the sacrimental records (baptism as alternative or supportive of birth records with “sponsors” who could be relatives/actual records of marriages with such little things like witnesses and sometimes parents) and the “little” challenge that the church seems not to have plot cards for a lot of plots (which you can’t look at in any case because two whole families with different surnames are in there per the town but as there are no headstones, the people are no in the website for the cemetery….arrrrgh
There are cases (don’t ask it will cause trouble) where institutions said they copied stuff to microfilm but don’t seem to have done so as it doesn’t appear to exist and then the originals managed to get “recycled”. I shouldn’t even get into the issue of things like developed x-ray film (and other types of film) being processed to reclaim the silver.
Sorry about all the negative waves. Its been an interesting couple of weeks with things like a church cemetery with a beautiful website but you are not going to be allowed to view the sacrimental records (baptism as alternative or supportive of birth records with “sponsors” who could be relatives/actual records of marriages with such little things like witnesses and sometimes parents) and the “little” challenge that the church seems not to have plot cards for a lot of plots (which you can’t look at in any case because two whole families with different surnames are in there per the town but as there are no headstones, the people are no in the website for the cemetery….arrrrgh
Dick, from the standpoint of technological advancement, your
argument makes sense. However, as the assistant director at a
medium-sized library with a very representative genealogy/local history
collection, including microfilm of every extant newspaper published in
our community, our observation is that it’s not about technology, but
digital rights. We own, on microfilm, newspaper images for our community
dating back to the mid-1870s. If we didn’t have microfilm, our
institution would be at the mercy of vendors offering access (not
ownership) to those images, at a price unaffordable to us, and generally
to the great majority of public libraries, even if we grouped ourselves
together into consortia to pool resources. It should also be noted
that, while images for many pre-1923 newspapers are available, and many
late-20th century papers were born digital and print, digital images
from the period in between are often scarce. So, be careful what you
wish for–while the technology exists to ease microform technology into
the museum, the economic model has yet to evolve for access to a
significant segment of digital content, for mid-20th century newspapers
especially, at a reasonable cost to genealogists.
This period of transition from microfilm to online digital
versions of historical records is presenting problems for researchers
who rely heavily on records that seem to be low priority to be digitized
and are paying steeper film rental fees to the Family History Library
just as their local Family History Centers have stopped maintaining
their viewers. If you need a viewer that takes a high-magnification
lens, you’re even more out of luck — two out of the three viewers at my
FHC that do this weren’t functioning on my last visits; the one
remaining machine is the only one from which patrons can scan or print
record copies, so patrons must compete for that one machine. With
several dozen films on permanent loan that I can’t move from that FHC to
one with working equipment and limited hours for access, it’s
challenging to carry out one’s own research, not to mention trying to
help others. Digitization can’t come soon enough, and in the meantime,
Family History Centers have a responsibility to maintain adequate viewer
resources so patrons can actually use the microfilms they’ve paid for.
Our library holds over 1,500 rolls of microfilm. We bought 2
digital readers last year. We won’t be getting rid of anything for the
forseeable future.
While you joke about the desire to crank through a microfilm,
I’d much rather have that option than viewing browse only digital
images on my home computer. I can locate an index in the middle of a
collection very quickly with microfilm. The same process is painfully
long when guessing at the location and waiting for the screen to refresh
as I page through the digital version. Until all the digital
collections are indexed, I’ll happily continue to use microfilm.
I agree with Nancy. Whizzing through a microfilm on a reader
to get to the exact page is so much easier than the “hunt and peck”
method of locating that page on the computer. On the other hand, I was
at the Family History Library recently and the two microfilms I needed
were already being used by others. I was so happy to find those films
had been digitized, and that I could use the computer to read the
records, even though it was not as fast as using the microfilm reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment