We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
434
physical preservation are not so much opposing as balancing philosophies: Proper storage can buy time for a planned restoration program and help prevent the need for emergency copying.
Recommendation 3.1: Establish the improvement of storage conditions as the Storage cornerstone of national film preservation policy and an integral
part of federal funding programs. By improving storage conditions and copying selectively, we can extend the useful life of a greater number and variety of films. Costs for the construction of storage facilities and their operation are admittedly large, but such expenditures nevertheless can maximize each preservation dollar. State-of-the-art storage facilities now aim at maintaining films at temperatures ranging from 35° to 45° Fahrenheit and at a relative humidity between 25% and 45% (depending on the type of film material and its intended use), but even small decreases in temperature and humidity have been shown to bring substantial extensions to film life. Because improving storage environments is a less visible and less dramatic solution than the project-oriented striking of new prints, it does call for greater foresight and longerrange planning among flinders and archivists.
This balanced approach is used increasingly by motion picture companies in their asset protection strategy. Public archives too are investing in improved storage, but federal grant programs, for the most part, remain designed to fund duplication exclusively. Given the importance of proper environmental conditions in extending film life, the Librarian of Congress and the National Film Preservation Board recommend realigning federal grant programs. Current duplication grants should consider the quality of the institutional storage environment that will house new preservation copies. Similarly, grants to filmmakers should alert creators to the preservation needs of their works. Most importantly, federal dollars should be used to encourage the upgrading or building of cool-anddry storage facilities.
The federal government is itself the largest single holder of American fiction and nonfiction films. Thus federal repositories should serve as exemplars of an approach that balances improved storage with selective duplication. Continued funding and support for storage, copying, and access in federal institutions will demonstrate the national importance of film preservation.
Recommendation 3.1 is the basis of many that follow, and its rationale is laid out more fiilly in the attached Supporting Document A, Keeping Cool and Dry: A New Approach in Film Preservation,
Redefining Film Preservation