Talk:Microform

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photography: History Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Arctic_World_Archive is using the same tech[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_World_Archive uses the same tech, but aside from the first guide film that is visually encoded onto film to explain how to read the digital content in other films. The other films are essentally a series of 2d barcodes encoded into microfilms. --Mofosyne (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge[edit]

I suggest we merge this article with "Microfilm" and "Microfiche." Those articles are practically identical, and this article would be a natural place to combine them. --Mdresser 03:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why a merge is necessary. The articles seem to be fine on their own.

--Gloriamarie 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input; I wasn't sure how many micro-format aficionados were out there :) I agree that the articles are fine on their own; in fact, I don't see much that would improve them individually. However, the articles are very similar:

the "Advantages/Disadvantages" sections are nearly identical
even though the photos of readers are single-use machines, most of what I have used are dual-use (fiche/film) readers; in short, it could be the same photo
"microform" is (and always will be) a stub, since the film and fiche articles are so thorough

My thinking is that -fiche and -film all fall within the "microform continuum", if you will, and that a reader would learn more by seeing them presented side by side rather than by looking back and forth between two nearly identical articles. Just my piece--let's see if we can get a few more votes yay or nay before tabling the merge idea. --Mdresser 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna WP:be bold and merge them now. --Rifleman 82 11:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: more info requested[edit]

Article has been marked for cleanup however I can see no specific problems listed on the main cleanup page. Please provide specific areas that need cleanup, suggestions would be nice too. -- ianaré

Current usage?[edit]

Are those still used? A lot? Statistics would be nice. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those products that is fast becoming obsolete. A current problem is that these cards are being disposed of in landfills. I would like to have a headline on on ecco friendly disposal.DLDomes (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, microfilm at universities (such as mine) is still the best way to store huge amounts of archive data at high resolutions in a durable physical form. Personally, I have frequently used microfilm for accessing newspaper archives, although recent newspapers are mostly digitized. One of the goals of archivists the world over is to digitize and make searchable all the old film and fiche, although due to the extremely large backlog, this is likely to take quite a while. So, although most newspapers and periodicals published in recent years are searchable online, the decades and decades of non-digital archives are stuck that way for now. Unless you want a rotting collection of newspapers (which microfilm was utilized to prevent), the only way to get really old sources is via micromaterials. Krashlandon ^(talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem caused by the merge and redirect.[edit]

There's a problem with the redirect as it is, is that it makes it impossible to disambiguate between microfilm, the film format and microfilm, the material used to cover indoor endurance model aircraft. This really needs to be done before redirecting to the format. HenrikOlsen (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have problems with the historic merge into this page, but for a different reason. Microfiche is the most common format, but doesn't have a page (try the Google test). 150.203.35.193 (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barreswill[edit]

Anyone heard of this chemist? There are some sources stating he invented the microfilm. --Mezod (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microform from the 1940s onward[edit]

The "History" section only covers up to 1938. Presumably there were more developments over the years. There should also be a section on the current status of microform recording. This would presumably include the transition to digital archival techniques as well as present-day areas where microform is still used. The "Uses" section touches on this, but is not really comprehensive. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption[edit]

One of the images has this caption: "A microfiche reader in a library". It appears to be a machine that can read either microfilm or microfiche. The spindle on the left is for mounting a reel of film. The knob on the right is probably to control movement of film forward or reverse, and various speeds. So, I'm sure the machine can use spooled film. It may also be able to handle fiche. SlowJog (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]