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.
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.
If it depreciates to zero, then fill the landfill up more with it, according to the bean counters.
Around 1980 I got a job as a COM Camera Operator.
This was a job mounting tapes on cameras, loading the job and film canister, and pulling the tape and film canister. The tapes held the data transported from a data center. The camera displayed and 'shot' the data onto 105mm film that became the master to produce microfiche from.
We were a Service Bureau so we got tapes in from companies all over the region. Many companies had their permanent financial records shot to microfiche.
Some jobs came in daily, weekly, or quarterly. The film masters produced on silver halide film, were then duplicated on diazo film (ammonia process, the same chemical process as used for blueprints) to produce the 'use' copies of microfiche.
The 'dupers' were a lower tier in the labor at the COM shop.
Some of the cameras were proprietary, but the other group of cameras (called the Betas for some reason) incorporated a PDP-8 minicomputer as their controller. The data tapes were either 800, 1600, or the new high density 6250 bpi tapes.
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.
I have used both (a very long time ago), but I remember always hating the film compared to fiche. Random access always wins in my book...
Around 1980, I got a job as an LPT Camera Operator!
#DeleteFacebook
Back in the late â90s I had to present to a group of academics at a univerisy conference. I was the only non-academic presenting, and at the time I worked as an IT consultant for a major software company that everyone likes to dislike. (Clue: starts with an O.) Wanting to ensure that my presentation was hassle free I asked for an overhead projector having previously printed out some transparencies at the office. All the other presenters were keen to show off their technical skills by presenting from their laptops using what was at the time relatively new technology: digital projectors. Back then they still required a certain degree of fiddling to get to work as this was still the era of Windows 95/98. And a lot of fiddling and delays ensued that afternoon. I didnâ(TM)t want any of that so opted for a good old fashioned overhead projector which worked flawlessly. Fast forward 20 years and it has become a much more reliable technology so wouldnâ(TM)t do the same today, but one shouldnâ(TM)t be ashamed of old-school technology if it gets the job done.
Printing a microfilm copy of everything as a backup and storing it in two or more safe places is the essential step. The aliens millennia from now can worry about re-inventing microfilm readers when they dig out the lunar vault where our backups are saved.
Sears Roebuck, ftw.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Much as I like The Atlantic, I will not click on this obvious clickbait bullshit slashvertisement.
TFA had exactly 1 paragraph out of 17 related to its own title:
Their longevity was another matter. As early as May 17, 1964, as reported in The New York Times, microfilm appeared to degrade, with “microfilm rashes” consisting of “small spots tinged with red, orange or yellow” appearing on the surface. An anonymous executive in the microfilm market was quoted as saying they had “found no trace of measles in our film but saw it in the film of others and they reported the same thing about us.” The acetate in the film stock was decaying after decades of use and improper storage, and the decay also created a vinegar smell—librarians and researchers sometimes joked about salad being made in the periodical rooms. The problem was solved by the early 1990s, when Kodak introduced polyester-based microfilm, which promised to resist decay for at least 500 years.
The original linked article from the New York Times in 1964 is actually far more interesting.
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."
indeed the readers I've worked with weighed 50 kgs, normal man who isn't a lazy out of shape cripple can carry them.
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
Maybe you should click on the story link...
The genealogy library of the LDS church (FamilySearch.org), one of the world's largest users of microfilm, with over 2.4 million rolls stored in its Granite Mountain facility (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Digitizing_the_Records_in_the_Granite_Mountain), has decided to stop making microfilm available for loan, due to cost and scarcity of film as well as the cost of maintaining the readers. They are currently digitizing the existing films and plan to have the project completed by 2020.
"Unlike a computer -- even an old one -- it was heavy and ungainly."
Just how young are you? I can remember taking a disk drive out of a PDP-11 rack and it took two adults to manhandle the drive.
I'm gonna guess you can't drive a stick shift either....
I have a customer who paid a company to scan their microfiche records to CD. Makes sense, sounds good. They got indexed and were searchable. The company promised the CDs would be readable forever. "Forever" was apparently until Windows XP was no longer supported. Now, we have to keep an XP VM around for them to read the old CDs because they can't be used any other way. Yes, we tried compatibility mode with no success. The program on the CD for reading the index database to locate the .tiff images would not run any other way except on the VM. The company that bought the original company which digitized the records offered to help us for a $150/hour or to convert the old CDs for a price.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Mormons have chosen to keep their microfiche records at Granite Mt. even though they are digitizing them for easier use. The technology turnover in digital storage is happening so quickly that you cannot pick a digital technology and be certain it will be readable for 20 years, much less 500.
There is still a need for offline backups that do not require a computer to read them. We are quite vulnerable to hostile nations using large EMPs against our digital tech and power grid. A microfiche or microfilm reader is nothing more than a projector. Simple, easy to reconstruct because it does not require electronics.
Seems like a very good way to keep records for the next several hundred years to me.
It probably ALSO includes a photographic printer (for high-res, high-quality copies), which would increase the complexity and weight quite a bit. Even if it did Kodak-style B&W "activator" development, the print path would have been pretty complex since the goal was "push-button, print-comes-out" simplicity for users.
I remember those readers... even back in the early 90s, my university charged $1.00/page to print microfilm & microfiche, back when normal copiers were 10c-25c/page (sometimes, 5c-9c if you had a high-value copycard). The only bright spot was that you could sometimes fit 2 pages on one print (microfilm) or 2x2 pages (microfiche) since the prints themselves were so high-resolution.
I work with a non-profit with just about 60 years worth of archives. In chatting with our archivist, we have set the following rules for what we archive digitally:
1) All data must be in open/publicly documented formats, and preferably those that already have a long history.
2) Filenames and directory structure must be desriptive. If the format supports metadata, it must be filled in.
3) The data is migrated to new media every 2 years.
4) Truly important documents (articles of incorporation, insurance paperwork, etc... ) is still printed off on acid-free paper, and kept in dry storage.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Angleton's Memex.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
The first micrographic experiments, in 1839, reduced a daguerreotype image down by a factor of 160.
The problem was solved by the early 1990s, when Kodak introduced polyester-based microfilm, which promised to resist decay for at least 500 years.
The math may be a bit fuzzy, but I'm about certain it hasn't yet been half a millennium since the earliest Microfilm, let alone the improved Kodak version claimed to last 500 years.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
That is some funny shit.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
So what are you whining about? You can run dos 2.11 and windows 1.01 in a VM too. Or old OS/2.
There is no problem. You don't have a problem.
Ha, I bought M-disks, they are good for a millennia. Or so they say, I won't be alive then, and if they have the tech to read blu-ray in 1,000 years, we're screwed as a species. So, yes, I paid a crap load of money for them, but hopefully they last more than a year or 2, unlike regular blu-ray recordable disks.
Nothing to see here, move along please.
It still seems easier than microfiche. You only need a laptop, and some VM software. And the only thing you've lost is the index database; which I assume is something you didn't have on the original microfiche (or did you? I really don't know how this works). You still have the TIFFs. You still have the database if you can decode it.
I do agree with your point about the other low tech benefits. Although that seems to be more about data that we want to preserve post apocalypse. Guessing the data format of a piece of film is quite easy. A full newspaper page is probably large enough on fiche to work out that you just need to magnify it. A CD - the data format is designed for error correction, which makes it pretty cryptic, and while TIFFs can probably be decoded if they use RLE or raw encoding, LZW and JPEG will require some insightful guesses to work out how the data might be stored.
Microfilm/fiche printing is still an optical process - not a digital one. The viewer part itself is super light (the heaviest part is the optics and lenses), but the optical printer is basically an analog photocopier. And those things are generally heavy and you have to basically duplicate the entire optical path again (for viewing, the light shines below the film/fiche through the carrier and then a compound lens and mirror array project it onto the screen, making it very light. To print requires reversing the light path (and given the light source is expensive, there's usually only one so you have an array of mirrors to reverse the light so it shines from top to bottom onto a lens projecting onto the drum and the whole toner process within).
My high school library was lucky - they only charged 10 cents per page. They subscribed to basically every magazine on the planet back then and it would come as a dump of fiche they had in drawers. They were nicely indexed - basically you could browse which magazine and issue you wanted, and it would point out which fiche you needed and even its coordinates. It was a nice dense way of storing lots of pages.
These are optical devices, not digital ones. You arent going to get images to pop out on your hp laserjet.
According to the article, the 500-year film was developed in the 1990s, when microfilm was being phased out everywhere. That doesn't leave a lot of 500-year microfilm out there!