[padg] Re: using acetate negative camera masters for digital conversion

["Jane Cullinane" <JCullinane@xxxxxxxxx>]

Search the archives of microlink-l http://www.nla.gov.au/nla/listserv/microlink_l.html which recently had a discussion on this topic. See, especially, the reply from Russell J. Burkel on 5/1/09 RE: microfilm longevity - Acetate replacement vs. digital replacement.

--Jane Cullinane
Connecticut State Library

>>> "Martyniak, Cathleen L" <cathy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 6/5/09  12:53 PM >>>
All,

UF has approximately 6,800 acetate negative 35mm acetate camera masters from the late 1950's to 1988 in a cold storage facility. Print masters do not exist for this collection. Though money is tight, the content is very important and thus a pilot project to convert the contents of a small portion  (approximately 400) of the reels and make the information available via digital means is in the early planning stages. Using figures gathered during the pilot will help inform the overall costs of what could be a multi million dollar project when all is said and done.

I understand that when converting contents from microfilm to digital, negatives are generally preferred. I also assume that polyester negatives are preferred.  However, given the scope of this project, the step of generating a new poly negative for each reel in the collection could add $340,000 to $680,000, assuming a regeneration fee between $50 and $100 per reel.  Therefore, I am exploring the pros and cons of skipping the poly step and going directly from acetate to digital.

Erich Kesse and I reviewed 50 random reels from this collection back in 1999. 3 were terrible, curly, crunchy and stinky. The other 47 smelled of vinegar but seemed stable.

If anyone has any advice or feedback, I would certainly welcome it.

Thanks,

Cathy