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.
565
96 Film Preservation 1993
which are sold in deals. Those studios or those people that possess the best elements are the ones that will be able to exploit the marketplace with them.
Therefore, I think in general people may be less willing to share information on that basis in the long run. I know there are some instances now with Columbia Pictures or other studios' titles in the public domain which are being sold in the same markets. But that's only the tip of the iceberg at this point because most films are still privately owned by the studios. I think this is a long term kind of situation that needs further evaluation.
MR. GARDINER: I would say pretty much the same thing, in that I think that a program of sharing information is probably what's needed in that we all agree that the terminology is key to what it is that you're trying to identify in the information. And perhaps the-you know, previously mentioned duality of effort is the first body of information that is shared, possibly just with the Library and see how that goes. And see what the reaction is before a larger, broader, more detailed amount of information is released, would be my opinion.
MR.TABB: Go ahead.
MR. FRANCIS: I'd like to make just one comment first and then ask a question. I think the sharing of specific information is vitally important I stiU come back to what I said to the earlier panel. I think if we're to stop duplication there must "be some possibility of actually comparing material held in national collections with material held by the studios. We all know that sometimes the best material does not necessarily come from a negative or finegrain, sometimes it comes from a studio print or there are different versions.
It seems to me that there mtist be some kind of comparison before we can decide not to copy material. Records can only take you so far. But the question I really wanted to ask is this, I suppose there must be something like 200 million feet of nitrate in national collections in this coimtiy. Now we heard this morning two things I think very important
One, was that it's important to keep nitrate because technology might change in future. We might need to copy it again. We also heard, both from archives and from the studios, that some of the preservation we all did in the seventies, we have to redo because stocks have become more sensitive; we've learned a lot about preservation.
The public archives are spending a huge amount of money on maintaining this nitrate collection, on inspecting it, etc., and making certain that it's in as good a state as possible.
Would you be prepared, if you copied this material, and were satisfied with the