Nov
2011

Microfilm or Digitization: Simplified View

To select between Microfilming and Digitization is a tough call and holding the decision for too long certainly impacts business motives. Although there are different views for both technologies, here I will try to highlight the differences between the scope of the two technologies, to enable you to understand these technologies better and select the appropriate one.

Definitions:
Microfilming:
A film on which materials are photographed at greatly reduced size; useful for storage; a magnification system is used to read the material.
Digitization: The process for translating photographs/documents into a digital form that can be recognized by a computer.

As there is a huge difference between the costs incurred and the process adopted for each of the two technologies, explaining each one separately will result in huge documentation, so I will limit this post to the decision making points for selection of appropriate technology as mentioned below:

(a) The first and foremost step is to find out the retention schedule of the document
(b) Second is to find how frequently these documents would need to be accessed

Answers to the above mentioned points and below mentioned guidelines will help you decide the appropriate technology to go for.

Technology Selection Criteria:
(a) If retention is permanent and access is frequent then we suggest Microfilm and Digitization both. As Microfilming will help to archive the document permanently, and damage due to frequent access of the microfilms rolls can be avoided by digitization.
(b) If Retention is permanent and access is rare then we suggest Microfilming as it is a one time process. (this case is rare)
(c) If retention is temporary and access is frequent then Digitization
(d) If retention is temporary and access is rare then Digitization

In today’s scenario many of us may always recommend Digitization and may challenge Microfilming because of following justification:
 
(1) Cost of microfilming is always higher than scanning as scanners are available for as low as $50 and scanning cost is almost nil, whereas microfilm scanner is much costlier than document scanner,  the cost of rolls and processing also adds up to the total cost for every document microfilmed.
(2) Even if documents are classified as Permanent and there is no access, then also we can scan and store it on offline media just like microfilm rolls.
(3) There are formats available such as PDF/A which take care of long term archival and migration of scanned images.
(4) At any time scanned images can be converted to Microfilm easily by Microfilm writer if required.

I also believe that the above mentioned points are valid but the only challenge is the life of media used for digitization which is constantly changing- like today how many of us have floppy drives and zip drives in our PC? Moreover specific software is also required for viewing these images, whereas microfilms are eye readable and can be magnified using light source & lens and the LE rating of microfilm is 500 years.

In spite of the technical challenge mentioned above, I prefer digitization over microfilming, as now a days storage media are cheap (w.r.t number of images it can save), and transferring data from one media to another is also not a challenge. We should also understand that in today’s fast moving business scenario, access of digitized document is more important than simply archiving it. As the information which is not easily accessible is of no use.

Name: Hemant

Web Site: http://www.newgensoft.com

Bio: Hemant is Senior Manager - Processing Services with Newgen Software Technologies Limited

3 Comments to 'Microfilm or Digitization: Simplified View'

Steve Wright July 2, 2012

Good article Hemant, very well explained.

Amazingly microfilming is still very popular over here in the UK. Not as popular as digitization, but people seem to still really appreciate microfilming rather than having files digitally. It’s probably something to do with the age estimates that are all over the internet that microfilm last for 500 years when compared to CD’s and DVD’s which have a 5-10 year lifespan apparently.

Either way, the client is always right, even if we sometimes feel that they are wrong!

Thanks again
Steve.

Hemant Sahni July 26, 2012

Very true Steve, people will certainly change their mind.
Microfilming is popular from the time when digitization technology was limited, but now digitization has crossed its entire barrier and is also easily available. In today’s world, information access and sharing is more important than just storing it, and digitization is perfect solution.
Although storage media is constantly changing its shape and getting better and obsolete day by day, but tell me how many of us have lost data due to change in technology? Need deep thinking…

Leave a comment






Archives

Recent Posted Comments

Swati Pandey
19th Feb 14 Posted a comment on Facilitating Financial Inclusion through Digital Transformation
Well written and informative.The article clearly depicts the writers thoughtand knowledge in the domain.All the best!! Looking forward for more ...
13th Feb 14 Posted a comment on Dynamic Case Management – A Fusion of BPM, ECM and Business Analytics
I think this is one of the most vital information for me. And i'm glad reading your article. But wanna ...
12th Feb 14 Posted a comment on Contemplating the Transition to Cloud Storage
I value the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.
11th Feb 14 Posted a comment on Dynamic Case Management – A Fusion of BPM, ECM and Business Analytics
I concur! completely with what you wrote. Fantastic Gear. Be it going..
9th Feb 14 Posted a comment on Opportunities and Challenges for Cloud Adoption in India
Nice post. I used to be checking continuously this weblog and I am impressed! Very useful info specially the closing ...