[RodM]

Hi Richard,

yes, in this case I have photographed directly from the reader, which is a method I still prefer.

In general, IMHO, scanning of microfilm is only feasible if the reproductions on film are large and clear, or if done on a dedicated film scanner (4000 dpi minimum) that allows mf to be feed through without the need to cut it up. Even many professional flatbeds don't have a high enough optical resolution to make acceptable reproductions from mf, especially from 16mm film (such as those from AFHRA). Many of these flatbeds artifically increase the resolution over and above what they can achieve optically, but this leads to loss of detail.

An example are the scanned PDFs of the IWM loss return microfilms that are circulating (and can be unofficially purchased from the IWM). Quite frankly, the clarity is of these scans are disappointing in parts, especially considering the size of document reproduction on the original film. The lack of detail in many of the scanned pages makes it impossible to read and transcribe data. The same applies to scans from microfilm offered by TNA archives, Kew. I still prefer to purchase duplicates of microfilm from Kew, rather than the alternate PDF scans, because it costs about the same and there are more options for post-reproduction from mf (one can greatly enlarge a mf page on the screen of a reader, in order to see detail, but the same cannot be done with a scanned page because of the limits in reproduced resolution).

'sorry for diverging away from the topic of this thread. Anyway, attached is a photographed sample page from an AFHRA 16mm microfilm; a type that I have found almost impossible to adequately reproduce with a scanner...

Cheers

Rod