I posted the question below to the listserv on October 8th
Has anyone out there switched their traditional microfilm
to digital microfilm? We are considering doing this for 3 newspaper
titles (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) using
ProQuest's Digital Microfilm.
What do your users think?
What problems have you encountered?
Are there other similar products?
I received several requests to post a summary back to the
list. So, hear goes…
SUMMARY:
Most libraries are the process of deciding whether or not to
make the switch. Below is a summary of pros/cons based on feedback from
this list and feedback from my library. This summary is limited to Proquest’s
Digital Microfilm product.
Pros:
**No MF
equipment required
**Accessible
from any computer with Internet access
**Multiple,
simultaneous users
**Print,
crop, email, save images
**Perpetual
Access to years paid for
Cons:
**Extra $$$ (5%
more than traditional film)
**Interface
clunky & slow
**Not keyword
searchable, must know title, issue, date, page
**A
transitional format?
**No usage
statistics
**Doesn’t
work well with SFX. Can link to main page, but not individual newspaper
titles or articles
**If
canceled, receive content on DVDs.
There were some concerns about the Tasini decision.
The Proquest rep I am working with clarified that it is not an issue with their
product. “Digital Microfilm is created from the film, therefore the
entire paper is represented. You will have the ability to crop, resize
the articles. So, yes you can 'technically' manipulate the paper.
Our rights and permissions dept has worked through legal issues with each
individual newspapers. With that in mind, I would treat the Digital
Microfilm in a similar fashion as the paper or film copies of the paper as they
fall under 'fair use'.”
Mindy
King, MLIS MBA
Serials/Reference & Instruction Librarian, Assistant
Professor
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Library
900 Reserve Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481
715-346-2321
mking@uwsp.edu