Slashdot Mirror
Microfilm Lasts Half a Millennium (theatlantic.com)
Millions of publications -- not to mention spy documents -- can be read on microfilm machines. But people still see these devices as outmoded and unappealing. From a report: I recently acquired a decommissioned microfilm reader. My university bought the reader for $16,000 in 1998, but its value has depreciated to $0 in their official bookkeeping records. Machines like it played a central role in both research and secret-agent tasks of the last century. But this one had become an embarrassment. The bureaucrats wouldn't let me store the reader in a laboratory that also houses a multimillion-dollar information-display system. They made me promise to "make sure no VIPs ever see it there." After lots of paperwork and negotiation, I finally had to transport the machine myself. Unlike a computer -- even an old one -- it was heavy and ungainly. It would not fit into a car, and it could not be carried by two people for more than a few feet. Even moving the thing was an embarrassment. No one wanted it, but no one wanted me to have it around either.
And yet the microfilm machine is still widely used. It has centuries of lasting power ahead of it, and new models are still being manufactured. It's a shame that no intrigue will greet their arrival, because these machines continue to prove essential for preserving and accessing archival materials. [...] Microfilm's decline intensified with the development of optical-character-recognition (OCR) technology. Initially used to search microfilm in the 1930s, Emanuel Goldberg designed a system that could read characters on film and translate them into telegraph code. Further reading: 'You Had to Be There': As Technologies Change Ever Faster, the Knowledge of Obsolete Things Becomes Ever Sweeter.
And yet the microfilm machine is still widely used. It has centuries of lasting power ahead of it, and new models are still being manufactured. It's a shame that no intrigue will greet their arrival, because these machines continue to prove essential for preserving and accessing archival materials. [...] Microfilm's decline intensified with the development of optical-character-recognition (OCR) technology. Initially used to search microfilm in the 1930s, Emanuel Goldberg designed a system that could read characters on film and translate them into telegraph code. Further reading: 'You Had to Be There': As Technologies Change Ever Faster, the Knowledge of Obsolete Things Becomes Ever Sweeter.
If the film will last 500 years, then don't get rid of it. But if the reader takes several people to move then it seems suitable for an upgrade. A transport mechanism for the film along with a camera to display the film on a computer or monitor would seem to be the way to go. It also wouldn't seem to to be too hard to have the reader be able to count frames, making quick access to go forward or back semi-automated.
The reason people don't want those ungainly machines is because they don't need them. You can get all the durability of microfilm storage without the bulk or complexity of the old-style camera or reader by using digital microfilm recorders and digital microfilm readers. A digital microfilm reader is about the size of a cigar box and hooks up via USB to your PC.
If you're preparing for a post-apocalyptic world, you can still always read those films with a simple handheld microscope.
It is all very romantic until you have to actually use one because some âoebureaucratâ refuses to get his collection digitized and a task that would take twenty minutes on a computer takes up the whole afternoonâ"if you are lucky enough to work with well-organized data, that is.
That's what I'm thinking, if I had an actual microfilm it'd go through the scanner once, be stored as PDF on a HDD and go back into the vault permanently or at least until you lost your last "normal" backup. How many microfilms can you store on a 10TB HDD?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The fools in this case were obviously up-sold to the largest most fancy model.
Its a projector. These fools picked up a 500lb projector for "$16,000 in 1998." When its put like that, there doesnt seem to be much of a story here. Its more of a lesson.
"His name was James Damore."
It is all very romantic until you have to actually use one because some “bureaucrat” refuses to get his collection digitized and a task that would take twenty minutes on a computer takes up the whole afternoon—if you are lucky enough to work with well-organized data, that is.
It takes time and money to digitize a large collection of analogue data.
They can budget to digitized and index / OCR everything at a certain rate ("x" rolls per week), but they may not get to the part of the collection that you're interested in right away. However, once you request particular roll(s), then they can perhaps push that up to the top of a stack on an ad hoc basis for future researchers. They can put the original analogue stuff back into storage.
I'm reminded of the Digital Doomsday Book in the UK that could not be read after 15 years, but the original from 1086 still accessible:
As a result, no one can access the reams of project information - equivalent to several sets of encyclopaedias - that were assembled about the state of the nation in 1986. By contrast, the original Domesday Book--an inventory of eleventh-century England compiled in 1086 by Norman monks--is in fine condition in the Public Record Office, Kew, and can be accessed by anyone who can read and has the right credentials.
* https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project
How much stuff was / is out there in Flash video format? How many DDS-1 tape readers are there, with an interface (IDE? SCSI-2?) that can connect to modern computers?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Magnetic_tape_data_formats