Moving image preservation in libraries - film and video

Library Trends, Summer, 2003 by Paula De Stefano

It is tempting to proceed with the line of thinking that existing duplication practices for book preservation may provide an adaptable methodology for motion picture film and video, but close inspection casts doubt on that idea. Beginning with terminology, the concept and context of duplication becomes confused and falters in translation between book and paper preservation vs. moving image preservation. For example, in film preservation parlance, "restoration" is a process used to restore visual quality to images where optical losses have occurred and "reconstruction" refers to a process of re turning the narrative sequence, or scenes of the film, back to its original sequential structure (Read & Meyer, 2000, p. 70). In both cases, these activities are performed in a duplication process that succeeds when a preservable copy of the original is produced--confusing to the book conservator, whose application of these terms in book preservation represents treatment procedures meant to restore an item to its original state, rather than produce a copy. But, unlike books and paper documents, films are projected and viewed. The new medium must faithfully reproduce continuous images but, in most cases, need not actually be the original. In order to revivify a damaged or deteriorated film, the sequence of frames must be copied or transferred to another film base where they can be safely stored.

MECHANICS OF FILM PRODUCTION THAT AFFECT PRESERVATION

Beyond issues of terminology, the process of duplication, as it relates to motion picture film (and video), does not easily translate from prevailing book preservation practices for mechanical reasons. Acceding to the idea that the reformatting of books to preserve content--in other words, microfilming or photocopying--correlates with the duplication of moving images to preserve content, the critical question is whether the programmatic procedures involved in one will suffice for the other. Below appear a few straightforward reasons why some of the principles and programmatic structures that support reformatting of books and documents do not correlate conveniently to moving image materials. In any conversation, citing the vast differences between the technology of the book and the technology of film itself merely states the obvious; but, considered within the context of reformatting, the complexities between the two technologies appear in alto-relievo.

To add clarity to this point, it is useful to briefly enumerate the complex technical aspects of motion picture film as presented in various places in film literature but most comprehensively throughout the text of Restoration of Motion Picture Film (Read and Myer, 2000). In addition to the various cellulosic film bases used over the years as carriers of moving images--in other words, nitrate and acetate in its various forms--films can be found in numerous widths, or gauges (70mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, Super8, and more) with various sprocket, or perforation, dimensions for which the "pitch," or distance between sprocket holes, varies. When filmmaking became a profitable industry, these kinds of film elements were eventually standardized by the motion picture film industry. Nevertheless, libraries have collections that exhibit a range of these elements and, in fact, are more likely to contain film produced outside of the movie industry and their standards. Thus, in theory, library collections are more likely to exhibit a high variety of film formats.