Color copies stored on Microfilm/Microfiche ? Best answer on the web
While doing research for my organization, I've often had to access information stored on microfilms and microfiche and noticed that, interestingly, almost all data that I reviewed was in B&W (black and white).
I am interested in finding out if and from when microfilms/microfiches were used to store and display information in color.
Thanks.
In keeping within the pricing guidelines of your question, I didn't go into a lot of detail in your answer.
GOOGLE ANSWERS PRICING GUIDELINES
https://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html
I'm sorry you misunderstood my answer to say that color microfilm is NEVER USED. I meant for you to understand that, though it may be used, it is NEVER RECOMMENDED for use as an archival medium and that its uses in the past have had serious drawbacks.
I did indeed find and read the link you provided before posting my answer. To quote what you quoted:
"Even at room temperature, it is possible to preserve master color film as long as 100 years."
The operative term is "100 years." 100 years is not archival for any purposes. 300 years? Maybe. 500 years? Yes. But not 100.
Also, understand what is meant by "master film". This is not the microfilm you are looking at when you go to the library. The master film is the one hidden away in the dark climate-controlled archival storage location. The one they make the library copies from. You can be sure the copy you are looking at (whether black and white or color) will not last 100 years.
Of course there ARE color microfilms of many documents – maps, color plates, certain historical documents, but in those instances it is acknowledged that the films are not "permanent" and that they will have to be replaced as they deteriorate. And in most cases, there also exists a black and white film of the document which is considered to be the actual "archival" copy.
The two links you gave me were to the same site -- to an article on Ilfords Cibachrome Microfilm. This product is now known as Ilfochrome Classic.
ILFOCHROME CLASSIC
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/ilfoclassic/Iclassic.html
If you go back and read the second paragraph I quoted from the first reference I cited, you will see I addressed that product as a possible contender for the use of color microfilm. Additionally, the link I provided to the article: LIBRARY PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION states:
"Iflochrome, which may have a life of up to 500 years in the absence of light, the testing is still incomplete, and color film cannot be recognized as a preservation medium."
Prior to the advent of Ilfochrome, the best available color format for microfilm was CHROMOGENIC film or your basic "Kodachrome". This type of film is what we know as everyday "color film" and has been in use since Kodak developed it in 1935.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS - Care, Handling, and Storage of Photographs
http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/photolea.html
Although slightly outdated, the below research report gives and excellent overview on how documents are archived.
" The first of these films was Eastman Kodak’s Kodachrome (1935), followed closely by Agfa’s Agfacolor films in 1936 and Eastman Kodak’s Ektachrome films in 1940. Today, all camera films, with the exception of instant colour films, are based on chromogenic development…"
THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIALS IN ARCHIVES AND LIBRARIES : A RAMP STUDY WITH GUIDELINES http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0005/000586/058641e.pdf
The chromogenic film used in the production of microfilm today is normally motion picture transparency film. It gives the high resolution needed to reproduce colors and details when the work is reduced to microform. It is not however, a long-term solution to archiving documents.
At this point, I feel I've addressed your further questions regarding the use of color microfilms.
Now, since you have also questioned the issue of answer quality, I'll take a second to comment on that point. The key to a successful answer here is to have researchers who can wade through the vast volumes of information available online, and take from that the cogent points that the questioner requires.
You are clearly a regular internet user so are aware that no matter which side of an argument you want to take, you can find supporting arguments online. The question is what is the "real" story? We both know that there is also a lot of bad (or just plain wrong) information out there. The keys of course are to a) qualify the sources and b) discern the current state of the art (or state of the argument, as it were).
For your $2.50 question I reviewed 53 websites (as logged in my History Folder) over the course of approximately 1 hour 35 minutes. From those I got a very good sense of the state of the art of microfilm technology. I then narrowed down those sites to about 10 sites that I felt were reliable and I read them in-depth. From those I drew your answer. I cited the ones I thought explained the issue in the simplest and clearest terms.
Had you posted, say a $15 or $20 question, I would have addressed both sides of the debate (which really isn't a debate – the professionals are in agreement) on the use of color film for microfiche in more detail. For $40 or $50 I might have given you a brief history of the use of microfilm and talked about the specific problems (and successes) associated with the use of color and older style black and white microfilms. For $75 or $100 I would given you the details on the different types of microfilming techniques and explained when and why the failures occur in each. Included would have been a discussion on the many causes of film deterioration. And for more than $100 I would have addressed the entire history of archiving documents in both color and black and white, with a focus on the development of new microfilming techniques as well as projections for the future trends towards digital technology.
I trust however, that what I have provided fulfills your needs at the price you offered.
-K~
Good observation!
As a general rule, there are no colored microforms that are recommended for long-term archival storage of documents, so pretty much anything you find in a library *should* be in black and white.
This website offers a nice overview of the history of microfiche and microfilms, and a good explanation of why color is not used –
"Polyester is the only film base currently recommended for preservation microfilming. Both stable and durable, black-and-white polyester film has a life expectancy of 500+ years under proper storage conditions…"
"Though there are many potential applications for color microforms, use of this technology cannot accurately be considered a preservation strategy because the life expectancies of most 35mm color films fall far short of preservation goals. Yet there is one (positive) color transparency film, Ilfochrome, that is considered quite promising for preservation…"
MICROFILM AND MICROFICHE
http://www.nedcc.org/plam3/tleaf51.htm
==============
OTHER SOURCES
==============
Microfilm - A Brief History
http://www.heritagemicrofilm.com/default.asp?ContentID=7
LIBRARY PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION
http://www.librarypreservation.org/preservation/microform.htm
"There is no such product as color chromogenic microfilm and what they use instead is cut motion-picture print film…." http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1996/1188.html
So that should explain why you aren't seeing much (if anything) in color – it just doesn't last…which is the whole point of micro storage.
Thanks for your question,
-K~
search terms:
color microfiche
"history of microfilm"
'color microfilm'
and interestingly came up with two web pages that offer a different view:
'the Commission on Preservation and Access published a special report entitled, "Research on the Use of Color Microfilm." This report concluded that color microfilming is a viable preservation method. Even at room temperature, it is possible to preserve master color film as long as 100 years.'
http://www.oclc.org/oclc/promo/presres/9123.htm
and
(Lincoln Editor, Papers of Abraham Lincoln - that show color microfilm being used) http://www.oclc.org/oclc/promo/presres/9123.htm
The reason that I have been using this Google answers service is because I have believed that comprehensive research is done before an answer is presented - and not merely running one or two google queries and basing an answer upon the same. While I don't mind paying this small amount - I would like to know how Google justifies this situation (presenting woefully inadequate information and thereby a misleading answer).
Thanks.
I noticed your comment "The reason that I have been using this Google answers service is because I have believed that comprehensive research is done before an answer is presented - and not merely running one or two google queries and basing an answer upon the same." You may want to visit the Google Answers pricing guide at https://answers.google.com/answers/pricing.html where it is noted:
"Sample Questions at Various Price Points $2 - $5
Can be answered with a single link or a single piece of information. Sometimes, if a researcher is personally interested in the question's subject, they may provide a longer answer."
Knowledge Seeker has gone above and beyond a single link in this instance so I thought you might want to consider examining the pricing guide to gain better understanding of the various suggestions there.
Best regards,
journalist-ga
Are you a fellow researcher of the person who answered this question? I do not know if you can see this information - the fact that this happens to be my tenth question in the last three and half months. I am well aware of what to expect for the price that I had offered. By a rule of thumb, if I expect the answer to my question to take to take less than ten minutes (if I searched for the same myself)- I price it for less than $5.00 (on my previous questions).
In fact, I do not even expect even a one line explanation to my question for this price... past answers by Google researchers have often given just pointers (mere URLs) but to the RIGHT and complete information.
If you are going to give out information that is erroneously incomplete for the reason that the amount quoted was meager...it would then be a clarion call to all those people who price their question below $5 to avoid this service altogether!! (which I'll be doing for I have now lost my trust in this service)
Dear knowledge_seeker-ga:
The second link that I had meant to provide was:
http://www.papersofabrahamlincoln.org/NewsletterPDFs/EDITOR03.PDF
I suggest that you really read the question well at the first instance itself. My question was merely about 'storing' and 'displaying' information and not for using "master films" for 'permanent' archival purposes. For mere storing and displaying of information on color microfilms the 'professionals are NOT in agreement' contrary to your statement.
Further, I am pleasantly surprised that a Google "researcher" spent 1 hour 53 minutes wading through information for answers (and yet not provide all relevant links) that an average Joe like me would have found in ten minutes!!
It only goes to show that Google should stop using the term 'experts' and probably come out with a tiered system (Grade I, II, III etc.) and where users can choose which level researchers should answers their question.
I sincerely apologize for having wasted your time for such a small amount! but, thank you for enlightening me to stay away from this service for good!!
Best Regards.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |