NARA Seattle

[Mikael Olrog]

Hi, I've had no problems in ordering material from NARA, it arrived ok.

Also I've scanned the mircofilms myself in my scanner. You need a scanner designed for scanning negatives (with a light in the lid). I've scanned 6 frames from the mircofilm per scan and it generally comes out better than in a mircrofilm reader with the distinct upside that I can access the material whenever I want and not only at the library...

/Mike

[Jaap Woortman]

Hi guys,

I have used the sunday for doing experiments with my scanner. I must say that after the first trials I am now making good progress and am able to scan three frames at one time with a good quality. After that I cut the scan in three seperate files for each frame. Do some picture processing for good contrast and sharpening and am quite satified at the end with the result.
Will keep in touch about the progress.

Jaap

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, guys.

On the topic of Foreign records seized.... anyone been doing research in the so-called Berlin documents??

From the overview in the NARA list this consist of at least 16000 !!!! rolls of microfilm....

Sorry! It should be 19000 rolls...

Regards,
Andreas B

[Andreas Brekken]

Hah!!

First roll ordered... only downside delivery/processing time of 30-60 days (+ shipping I guess)

Regards,
Andreas B

[RT]

roll ordered... only downside delivery/processing time of 30-60 days (+ shipping I guess)


That's let time to think about...

[RodM]

Hi Everyone,

OKL/416 contains:

- a small handful of Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt ('Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei den Fliegenden Verbänden') loss returns for the 1945 period (nothing that isn't already available elsewhere), plus a single Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt loss return for non-flying personnel.
- some volumes of Vordruck II for a Fallschirmjäger unit in August 1944
- lists/details of Luftwaffe casualties/PoWs as broadcast by the Western Allies on German language propaganda stations in 1945. It appears that work was done to tie up the broadcast details with the loss returns.

OKL/405a & b contains:

- an incomplete set of Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt ('Flugzeugunfälle und Verluste bei den Fliegenden Verbänden') loss returns for the 1945 period; again, nothing that isn't already available elsewhere.


I've attached some sample images from OKL/416...

Cheers

Rod

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Rod and Jaap,

Rod, your scans are still better than Jaap's improved scans. What are you scanning them with? I also note the framing lines of a reader/printer, possibly suggesting that you are photographing its screen. True?

Jaap, keep trying. Hopefully, you'll eventually capture all the weak detail.

Regards,
Richard

[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

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Rod,

You have raised the interesting question as to scan resolution from microfilm as provided by archives. If this is, indeed, of poor resolution, then it is not archival and one needs to find another way.

When I go to the NASM Garber archives, frequently the microfilm is uneven. That is, it may be dark on the left and transiltion to light on the right, or some such. Using an average exposure, some data will undoubtedly be missing. So, my policy is to make multiple exposure printouts to be sure, as best as possible, that I have captured all of the information on the page.

Scanning the microfilm with a high resolution film scanner would likely obviate this issue, as the scan could be made in full 0 to 255 mode, then the page worked on to present a copy readable from edge to edge, essentially better than what is on the microfilm.

As you note, the key would be to find a lighted lid scanner that has the resolution needed while eliminating the necessity of cutting up the reel of film. Any suggestions as to equipment that can do this?

I do have a microfilm reader but never gave consideration to capturing the image directly from the reader's screen. And, seeing that it has no grid lines, as with a reader/printer, this could prove to be a good method. Next up, of course, would be to plunk down for a good digital camera. Capabilities are increasing every year as the prices keep falling. So, timing could be a bit of a ways off.

Of course, capturing from a frosted glass is not as good as directly from film, so I'm still all ears for a good recommendation for a film scanner, especially one where I wouldn't have to butcher the film.

Regards,
Richard

[RodM]

Hi Richard,

I guess that where there is a will, there is a away. I have to admit that I'm am advantaged by having a photographic background, and admit that the sample pics from microfilm posted above were taken on a reasonably decent camera. Yet the benefits in investing in a DSLR camera are there, especially because such cameras can increasingly be used to photograph original documents in many archives around the world (TNA, NARA, National Archives of Canada and Australia to name a few), and thus save on time and photocopying costs.

Of course, vignetting is a common feature when dealing with microfilm, but there are ways to fix this. Adobe Lightroom, for example, is a fantastic program for post-production, and has controls to fix vignetting that work well (and batching options to apply the settings to a range of images). However, this software is expensive.

One of the disadvantages I found trying to scan, was that the time invested in scanning was not rewarded with a high enough quality output. Using a DSLR with the right lens (i.e. a decent 50mm/f1.4) and photographing the mf from screen has just been way quicker than scanning and at a much higher resolution...

A company called Wicks & Wilson make professional microfilm scanners, but, no doubt, they are expensive...

http://www.wwl.co.uk/rollfilmscanners.htm


I'm sure that I've recently seen reference to a 35mm film scanner that had the option of being able to feed uncut 35mm microfilm through, but I cannot remember the make or model.

Cheers

Rod