Analog Film Digitization

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Digital Preservation of Analog Moving Images

Annotations by Jennifer Brcka

Definition of Project

This annotated bibliography examines the challenges and benefits of digitizing analog moving image media. The bibliography’s topics include concerns about expense, impermanence, and legal ambiguity related to digitization, as well as discussion of online access and image restoration. The bibliography includes only peer-reviewed articles which address philosophical or policy-related issues relating to digitization of film by cultural institutions published since 2007. It does not include technical guidelines, case studies, or works pertaining to motion picture digitization in the commercial sphere. The string “digitization AND preservation, AND ‘film archives’” has been helpful in retrieving results. In addition to a broader literature search, runs of the journals Film Preservation and The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists during this time period have been examined in their entirety. Research reveals both enthusiasm and concern surrounding the greater implications of digitizing analog motion pictures. This bibliography helps provide a framework for understanding these hopes and anxieties and, in turn, should inform digital curators’ decision-making as they seek to digitize moving image materials.

Annotations

Costa, J. M. (2018). The place of analogue and the double life of digital. Journal of Film Preservation, 98, 17-24.

Costa relays benefits of film digitization but urges caution in aspects of its adoption. He states that a benefit of digitizing analog film to high-definition formats is that it allows for widespread theatrical screening. However, he feels the expanded access possible through digital distribution is achieved at a cost important for film curators decisioning access copy formats to bear in mind. He argues that screening digital films creates an atmosphere distinct from the historic analog cinematic experience, and therefore it may not be appropriate in settings such as museums. Costa states that an additional area for caution exists during the process of digitization. He believes there is a narrow margin of acceptability for digital editing tools to be used in the preservation of analog moving images, and that decisions to use these must be both pedagogically sound and rigorously documented. He argues that attempts at media enhancement can easily yield media corruption.

Fairall, C. (2016). FoFA: The future of film archiving. Journal of Film Preservation, 94, 9-16.

This article provides insight on the evolving role of digitization in the film archivist’s preservation toolkit. It consists of a collection of topical summaries and debates compiled following an open meeting of the Future of Film Archives group in 2012. It provides perspective on factors Fairall believes point to the impending inevitability of digitization becoming the primary method of film preservation. In support of this changing environment, the author writes that ‘losing’ analog film may in fact serve to enhance broader appreciation for the look of historic materials such as nitrile or Technicolor films. As such, he believes digitization should be welcomed not only as a means to reproduce images, but also as a tool for medium-sensitive restoration. Of note, the article provides a list of concrete suggested actions which serve as a bridge between understanding the debate surrounding the digitization of archival films, and the implementation of best practices sensitive to an increasingly digital landscape.

Gracy, K. F. (2013). Ambition and ambivalence: A study of professional attitudes toward digital distribution of archival moving images. The American Archivist, 76(2), 346-373. doi:10.17723/aarc.76.2.t401kx8j64682224

Through interviews with moving image archivists and digital project managers on film preservation and distribution, Gracy sheds light on both the benefits and challenges inherent in film digitization. One challenge cited is that while the archival field has largely embraced the increased productivity attainable through the ‘More Product, Less Process’ (MPLP) model, MPLP has not been easy to adapt to film digitization processes where item-level processing and playback are required. Further, limited resources may dictate that archivists are able to create low resolution digital access copies, but not high-resolution digital preservation surrogates. Another challenge exists in the rising volumes of user requests to stream content where archives’ rights to do so might only murkily meet the definition of fair use. Benefits of digitizing films and making them available online include the ability for content to be seen by its maximal audience, and for institutions with access as a key component of their mission statement to more fully meet that objective.

Gracy, K. F. (2007). Moving image preservation and cultural capital. Library Trends, 56(1), 183-197. doi:10.1353/lib.2007.0050

Gracy explores a then-nascent potential benefit of digitizing film and video: the fact that such files could be made available on social video sharing sites such as YouTube. The author argues that this holds the potential to further democratize cultural institutions choosing to participate. She states that this activity could facilitate links and associations between digital videos held within such institutions and those supplied by users on video sharing sites. Within such an environment, she remarks, “the meta archive of moving images seems to be finally within our reach” (p. 184). However, she cautions that this heralds a move into uncharted territory as cultural institutions placing video content on social publishing platforms would necessarily be forced to grapple with users’ assessments of the value of that content.

Lenk, S. (2014). Archives and their film collection in a digital world; or, what futures for the analog print? The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, 14(2), 100-110. doi:10.5749/movingimage.14.2.0100

Lenk considers how the rise of digital film projection facilities might impact archival tasks and decision-making. The author states that 85% of North American and 67% of European theaters owned digital projection equipment in 2012. She also notes that the visual and auditory quality of analog film will provide an increasingly alien experience for younger viewers, whom archives may especially seek to draw. However, Lenk expresses concern about whether archives’ failure to screen the historic, but imperfect, analog films in their collections might eventually prompt fiscally-minded governing bodies to ask why analog films are being retained at all. Lenk notes that trends toward digital preservation and screening do not wholly align with the International Federation of Film Archives collection policy which favors maintaining film on the carrier on which it originated. She further acknowledges that wholesale digitization of entire film archives is not a viable strategy for a range of financial (staffing), legal (rights ascertainment), and technical (shifts in supported formats and carriers) reasons.

McDonough, J., & Jimenez, M. (2007). Video preservation and digital reformatting: Pain and possibility. Journal of Archival Organization, 4(1-2), 167-191. doi:10.1300/J201v04n01_09

McDonough and Jimenez not only speak to the advantages of digitizing of videotaped content, they also provide a sobering call to action. They state that advances in archival digitization processes are needed in order to preserve important cultural works originally captured on videotape for future scholarship. However, the article describes challenges encountered in pursuit of this endeavor. One challenge is that videotape collections often exist at scale but must be assessed for digitization on an item-by-item basis. A reason for this is a lack of metadata applied to analog video collections which might otherwise allow them to be assessed at scale. While MARC records may describe the video’s format, they do not list the age or brand of tape used, which each might be vital considerations in preservation planning. The authors state that archival container lists tend to include even less of such metadata. Further, the authors describe the costs of maintaining digitized files. They write that 210 terabytes would be required to hold 1,500 hours of video content digitized to preservation standards. At the time of writing, the cost associated with this volume of file space was 2.1 million dollars. The authors accurately predict that this price would fall sharply, lending support for high-definition digital reformatting as a more viable preservation strategy in the near future.

Pierce, D. (January 01, 2010). Copyright, preservation, and archives: An interview with Eric Schwartz. The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, 9(2), 105-148.

This interview sheds light on the challenge of determining fair use for moving image materials in the digital environment. According to Schwartz, fair use is difficult for archives to shape policy around as it is not a right per se, but a defense against infringement. As such, its application is open to interpretation, and litigation, on a case-by-case basis. Schwartz also notes that the role of archives in reproducing copyrighted moving image content tends to be protected following copyright holders’ widespread poor preservation stewardship of those materials during the first century of the film industry. Schwartz states that the House Judiciary Report which accompanied the Copyright Act of 1976 expressly provided an example of fair use by a film archive. He also states that this entry provides the sole example in the House Report, to his knowledge, of the copying of a work in its entirety being deemed fair use. Schwartz cautions that while the present environment for archival fair use is fairly permissive, legal trends can be cyclical and the environment may not remain permissive indefinitely.

Usai, P. C. (2009). Are all (analog) films “orphans”?: A predigital appraisal. The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, 9(1), 1-18.

In considering whether all born analog films are orphaned (here, neglected) works, Usai discusses the contemporary preservation environment for such films. He notes that digitization projects are more appealing for politicians to market to constituents than analog preservation, as widespread access over the web is implied. Usai states that the prospect of using public funds for film digitization is complicated by the fact that there is no clear consensus about the “[…] mechanism to be put in place for archiving digital files and periodically migrating them” (p. 10). The author briefly considers whether the continued migration of digital media from one format to the next will be supportable long term, either financially, or from a conservation perspective.

Wallmüller, J. (2007). Criteria for the use of digital technology in moving image restoration. The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, 7(1), 78-91.

In proposing a set of theoretical guidelines for the ethical use of digital film preservation, Wallmüller examines how digital preservation techniques might be adapted to help film conservators meet the traditional tenets of preservation using digital tools. Citing the established requirements for such interventions to be authentic, reversible, and transparent, Wallmüller explains how these qualities might be achieved in the digital environment, insisting “ethical principles for traditional restoration methods must not lose their validity with the advance of digital tools” (p. 78). The author proposes that digital treatments applied to analog motion pictures which do not meet these standards might more accurately be termed ‘digital treatment’ than ‘restorations’.

Walsh, D. (2008). How to preserve your films forever. The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists, 8(1), 38-41. doi:10.1353/mov.0.0001

In this essay on the ephemeral nature of both film and its digital surrogates, Walsh writes that an advantage of film digitization exists in that digital media resolves the issues inherent in user access to analog time-based media. Films are often stored on bulky media and can require complex or hard-to-find equipment for playback. Digital films, however, can be viewed from anywhere in a manner that better aligns with user needs. In addressing the detractions of digital film preservation, he notes the danger of technicians degrading image quality during digital processing, including attempts to clean up graininess. He notes that such processing can result in images which are too perfect. Walsh states, “Original camera negatives were never intended to be used in a way that presents all the data they hold […]” (p. 39). Further, he suggests both perennial cold storage of analog film, and long-term mass digital storage of digital reproductions, may each eventually result in untenable carbon footprints.