and your comparison holds, with respect to people
who are doing the
same thing in film-to-digital conversion with regard to Microfiche,
which have a long proven archival quality in comparison to the dubious
CDR/magnetic medium the data is converted to.
Going all the way digital, I don't feel so bad about. Sure, the
digital images may have some shortcomings, but the microfilm copies
were already of borderline image quality in most places. And
I don;'t think the loss of quality matters in these cases. Most people (I
hestitate to say all) don't care if they can't see the exact details of
the font used to print a technical manual, they just want to get the
information out. You don't care about the thickness of the lines used on
a schematic, you just need to know what's connected to what in order to
fix the machine.
I think the main issue is that microfilm is likely to have a much longer
useable life than any digital storage medium (and you won't convince me
that putting something on the web will _necessarily_ preserve it, either).
the big win is that 10 mirrors can get copies of the
digitized
microfilm and 100 people might download the digitized stuff from
each mirror. (Not that you can't duplicate microfilm, but...)
Of coruse makine the manuals available is a Good Thing. Nobody is
disputing that. I just feel that if you scan microfilm, or paper, or...
you should keep the originals, or pass them on to somebody who will
preserve them.
-tony