The actual purpose is best answered by the OP, but my comment was cautionary -- archival implies a permanent storage and preservation objective, and digital media is not very permanent without periodic maintenance to ensure data integrity and readability by future hardware and software. Institutions are set-up for this, but a one-time, one-person scanning effort may not incorporate the long-term maintenance.
These days, in my experience, original material (e.g., film, prints) at archives are considered to be artifacts after they are digitized, and the digitized version is what people use on a routine basis. Before digital media was operational, copy negatives of prints, or prints made from them, served the same purpose as today's digital copies. A rough distinction between an archive and a library is the sharing aspect.
Copies are great, especially if the original is lost in a fire, but preservation of the original is of course prudent. Analog copies are a better long-term hedge against disaster than digital copies, because they need much less maintenance and have a naturally long shelf life if stored reasonably well. In the present context, the main advantage of digital files is sharing via the internet, or making numerous prints, and the original material has limited wear and tear from handling once a good scan is obtained.
If it's worth scanning, it's worth saving, and the OP's material sounds like its worth saving.
Hollywood film archivists have a lot of experience with these issues. See "The Digital Dilemma" by the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. A more operational source is Frey and Reilly's "Digital Imaging for Photographic Collections", published by the Image Permanence Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology.
You are welcome. Please consider the process of paring down the collection, especially if you are considering publishing the best. The rest of the films will last another 100 years or better. Plenty of time to make another pass over the collection. We do what we can in our lifetime.
Very Best,
Jac
Ok, cool! I'm glad to hear of someone else using the scanner. And, yes, this scanner has the transparency lid on it. I've decided to go ahead and keep it to get started. I wasn't able to use the software that came with it, but used the VuScan software and it works just great. THANKS!!!
Hi, Jim - could you give me an example of what a large commercial flatbed might be? I'm assuming it's not the v850? I like the idea of loading up the glass like you say. It seems that could really speed things up! I'm a newbie at the scanning process...I've got a lot to learn.
I am concerned that some of our contributors do not understand the terrible burden of scanning everything. Simple arithmetic will show how unrealistic it it is to scan the whole collection. And to what end? The original media - slides, negatives will likely survive longer than their digital representations.
.
Large commercial flatbeds include the Screen Cezanne, Creo Eversmart series, iQSmart scanners, etc. - I have a Cezanne myself, as do several forum members. These are huge, heavy beasts that are about as good as it gets in terms of ease of use, throughput, and quality, but the expense, upkeep, difficulty in finding good working units, etc. is a problem. I wouldn't go down that route. You could pay for a lot of scans before you made it worthwhile, and you'd have to deal with the learning curve. Full disclosure: I have and continue to make scans for others on my Cezanne, so I might be slightly biased.
Not Jim, but I can highly recommend Micheal Streeter who sells refurbished Creo's , I have one of his Eversmart Supremes and many here use the different levels of this system.
He is extremely helpful in getting started and will maintain any problems online.
The software Oxygen and the platform itself is very easy to use after your experience with the Epson.
Bob
Bookmarks