On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Karen Stuart wrote:

> The post-processing labor is far, far more more involved and costly
> for a digital project--someone has to index and then link up all those
> images so that they display in proper order.
I find it hard to believe that the cost of all those MF readers at all  
of the locations and their maintenance would be exceeded by the one- 
time indexing of records.
>
>
> Your point about simultaneous users is well taken, and I love using
> high-resolution digital images--but before research use, we need to
> value *preservation* of the records.  I doubt many institutions have
> even 25% of their holdings on microfilm.  To better secure the
> collections, and for my tax dollars, I'd rather see that number
> increased to 50% or 75% and reserve the Cadillac treatment for the
> most important, highly used records.  I think that the Library of
> Virginia is doing a good job of balancing these competing interests.
AFAIK, the LOV has shut down the digitalization project a few years  
ago due to budgetary constraints. I would love to find I am wrong.  
Where's the balance in that?

Also, with a bit of imagination, the users could do in-depth indexing.  
Instead of duplication of effort, information on digital records could  
be entered into the system by the folks that use the newly digitized  
records. Lord knows there are enough of them out there who drool over  
the possibilities of using newly recorded info to make that work.

Furthermore, rather than static MF readers, a computer not hooked up  
to any system could be used by each user to enter info into a  
database. Given the vast numbers of people who search deeds, tax  
records and the even more vast hordes of genealogical researchers  
going over the same records time after time, I would think that in  
less than 10 years the entire dataset could be digitized by the users.  
If we donated our older computers to the LOV for that purpose and had  
them sit beside the MF readers, both sides of the equation would  
benefit. No point in all that data getting digitized and going into a  
data black hole, is there?

Has the LOV given thought to accepting digital records? Yes it has.  
For instance, I have a project in downtown Richmond for which the 1782  
census, the 1819, 1852, 1960 and 1870 city directories will be  
completely digitized. For the first time, that info will be available  
for use as those records will be donated in digital form to the LOV.  
Once digitized, they can be migrated to whatever software/hardware  
comes along. And anyone on earth can access them with a computer, etc.  
etc. et danged cetera.

Another person's opinion.

Lyle the Digitally Frustrated Researcher
>
> One person's opinion.
>
> Karen Stuart
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Lyle E. Browning  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> A scanner already in place costs the same as a person to run a MF  
>> machine,
>> presumably. After that, MF costs are way higher. Far fewer people  
>> can have
>> access, it's B&W, the resolution isn't great, and so on and so forth.
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html