Anna Kuure-Kinsey - Inaccessible information. The information silos of media - BOBCATSSS 2017
0 likes243 views
The document discusses the challenges surrounding the preservation and accessibility of media items, highlighting factors like storage conditions, funding disparities, and technological limitations that exacerbate public inaccessibility. It uses Grinnell College's archival media collection as a case study to illustrate these issues, revealing that many items are not fully cataloged or accessible due to inadequate resources. Additionally, it notes that inequalities in preservation and access reflect broader global disparities, particularly in geographic and financial terms.
![Anna Kuure-Kinsey
annak3@illinois.edu
Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, United States of America
Abstract Storage Conditions
Inaccessible Information: The Information Silos of Media
The Bigger Picture:
International Implications
Technologies for Preservation
and Access
References
New technologies hold possibilities for increased access to archival items, but this is not
so for media items. Multiple factors contribute to public inaccessibility of media items.
v Multiple media formats
v Technologies for preservation and access
v Storage conditions
v Funds and other resources
Inequalities of access mirror other, older inequalities on a global scale, with geographic
location and monetary resources being key barriers to preservation and access.
Becker, S. (2007). See and save: Balancing access and preservation for ephemeral moving images. Spectator 27(1),
21-28.
Brylawski, S., Lerman, M., Pike, R., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2015). ARSC guide to audio preservation. Eugene, OR:
Association for Recorded Sound Collections; Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information
Resources; Washington, DC: National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress.
Byers, F.R. (2003) Care and handling of CDs and DVDs: A guide for librarians and archivists. Washington, DC:
Council on Library and Information Resources. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
CDP Digital Audio Working Group. (October 2006). Digital audio best practices version 2.1. Retrieved from
http://sustainableheritagenetwork.org/digital-heritage/digital-audio-best-practices-version-21
Edmondson, R. (April 2004). Audiovisual archiving: Philosophy and principles. Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Greene, M. A., & Meissner, D. (2005). More product, less process: Revamping traditional archival processing. The
American Archivist, 68. 208-263.
Jimenez, M., & Platt, L. (2004). Videotape identification and assessment guide. Austin, TX: Texas Commission on the
Arts. Retrieved from http://www.arts.texas.gov/
Jones, J. (2008). Audiovisual preservation on a shoestring budget: A bag of tricks for the underfunded collections
manager, part 1 (Technical Insert No. 152). Champaign, IL: Illinois Heritage Association.
Jones, J. (Lecture, September 8, 2016)
NFPF (National Film Preservation Foundation). (2004). The film preservation guide: The basics for archives,
libraries, and museums. San Francisco, CA: National Film Preservation Foundation.
Ranger, J. (2012, August 1). What’s your product: Assessing the suitability of a More Product, Less Process
methodology for processing audiovisual collections. Audiovisual Preservation Solutions. [Web log Post].
Retrieved from https://www.avpreserve.com/papers-and-presentations/whats-your-product-assessing-the-
suitability-of-a-more-product-less-process-methodology-for-processing-audiovisual-collections/
Wheeler, J. (2002). Videotape preservation handbook. 1-28. Association of Moving Image Archivists.
Wheeler, J., (with Brothers, P.) (n.d.). Videotape preservation fact sheets. Hollywood, CA: Association of Moving
Image Archivists.
Preservation
Audio and Video
(Wheeler, 2002; CDP Digital Audio Working
Group, 2006; Jones, 2016)
v Time base corrector
v Audio mixer
v Analog to digital converter
v Waveform monitor
v Color bars
v Vectorscope
v Computer monitor, cables, hard drive
Film (NFPF, 2004)
v Loupe and lightbox, or film viewer
v Rewinds
v Splicing tools
v Film cores, containers
v Footage counter
v Film cleaner, ruler
v Flatbed editing table
v Tabletop sound reader
v Wet-gate printer
v Optical printer
v Digital restoration software
v Redimensioning chemical treatments
Viewing
v Some media formats can only be played
on specific players originally designed to
play a certain carrier format, others can
be played on multiple players
v Knowledge, tools, and parts needed to
repair broken machines
v Many players no longer commercially
available, archivists rely on hobbyists to
construct new machines or buy used
items (Jones, 2008)
Examples (Brylawski et al, 2015; Jimenez & Platt,
2004; NFPF, 2004)
v Grooved discs: Turntables
v Magnetic tape: Playback decks are
format specific
v Video cassette: Playback machines are
format specific
v Film: Projection equipment is film gauge
specific
v Archives in hotter, more humid locations need to spend more time, effort, funds, and
equipment on climate controlled storage for items, compared to countries with cooler
and less humid climates
• Increases difficulty of both preservation and access in these countries
v Users in different countries do not have same means or knowledge to access different
media formats
• What form or forms of access best serves local users?
• Streaming? DVD? VHS?
v Differences in copyright laws over time and in different countries can present legal
issues regarding access and preservation (NFPF, 2004)
v Funding, access to digitization and playback equipment may vary systematically
across different countries or continents
v Lack of adequate training programs in all countries (Edmondson, 2004)
• Many media archivists are self-taught
• Many training programs located in 1st world countries
Cool, dry, storage environment, with low relative humidity is best for preservation of various media formats
Audio (Byers, 2003; Brylawski et al., 2015)
v Optical media: CDs and DVDs
• 10º to 20º C (50º to 68º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%
v Other audio formats
• 8º to 12º C (46º to 53ºF)
• Relative humidity: 25-35%
Video (NFPF, 2004)
v Videotape (analog and digital)
• 4º to 12º C (40º to 54º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%
Audio (Brylawski, Lerman,
Pike, & Smith, 2015)
Cylinders
v Wax
v Celluloid
Grooved Disc
v Shellac
v Vinyl
v Lacquer
v 78, 45, 33
Magnetic Tape
v Open reel
v 8-track
v Compact cassette
v Microcassette
v DAT
v Sony MiniDisc
Analog Video (Wheeler, n.d.)
Various tape widths, either
cassette or open reel format,
from multiple companies
v Sony Betacam
v S-VHS
v Hi-8
v VHS
Digital Video (Wheeler, n.d.)
Various tape widths,
thicknesses, manufactured
by different companies
v D5
v DVCPro
v DCT
v Digital Betacam
v DV
v MiniDV
v DVCAM
Film (NFPF, 2004)
v Commercial films
v Home movies
Film Gauges
v 35mm
v 16mm
v Regular 8mm
v Super 8mm
Film Stock
v Nitrate
v Acetate
v Polyester
• Black & white
• Color
Grinnell College: An
Example of Inaccessible Resources
Grinnell College Archival Media Items
v Small liberal arts college in Grinnell, Iowa, United States
v Collection of archival concerts that are not fully accessible to current students or alumni
• Not fully cataloged
• Not on accessible formats
v Concerts are from the 1980’s to the mid 2000’s and are on DATs or cassette tapes
v Between 400-500 DATs, containing about as many concerts, from 1900’s to mid 2000’s
v In 2013 the College began to digitize these archival concerts to make them accessible to students
v Grinnell College does not have the staff time or other resources to digitize both DAT and cassette tape
archival concerts at once
v DATs have priority in digitization
• More unstable format (Brylawski et al., 2015)
• More inaccessible to students, because they require a rarer player
Digitization Process
v Cataloging of concerts
v Digitization occurs off-site with a commercial company
v CD access copies and preservation masters on hard drives returned to Grinnell College
v CDs integrated into collection, students can access materials
Funding and Other Resources
Funding
v Lack of funding for archives
v Lack of recognition of cultural and historical value of media items (Becker, 2007)
Other Resources
v Backlogs in many archives, streamlined approach needed to process them (Green & Meissner, 2005)
v Streamlined intake process does not work well for audiovisual items
• Intake and preservation processes often involve playing the items to determine content and extend of
damages (Ranger, 2012)
• Digitization requires full play through of item, with quality control monitoring
v Audio-visual collections therefore require more processing than other types of collections
Multiple Media Formats
Film (NFPF, 2004)
v Nitrate film (no sound track)
• 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%
v Acetate film (no sound track)
• 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%
v Polyester film (black & white, color)
• 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%
v Film with sound track
• 4º to 12º C (40º to 54º F)
• Relative humidity: 30-50%](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kuure-kinseyposterinaccessibleinformationtheinformationsilosofmedia-170213093910/85/Anna-Kuure-Kinsey-Inaccessible-information-The-information-silos-of-media-BOBCATSSS-2017-1-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Anna Kuure-Kinsey - Inaccessible information. The information silos of media - BOBCATSSS 2017 (20)
Anna Kuure-Kinsey - Inaccessible information. The information silos of media - BOBCATSSS 2017
- 1. Anna Kuure-Kinsey [email protected] Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, United States of America Abstract Storage Conditions Inaccessible Information: The Information Silos of Media The Bigger Picture: International Implications Technologies for Preservation and Access References New technologies hold possibilities for increased access to archival items, but this is not so for media items. Multiple factors contribute to public inaccessibility of media items. v Multiple media formats v Technologies for preservation and access v Storage conditions v Funds and other resources Inequalities of access mirror other, older inequalities on a global scale, with geographic location and monetary resources being key barriers to preservation and access. Becker, S. (2007). See and save: Balancing access and preservation for ephemeral moving images. Spectator 27(1), 21-28. Brylawski, S., Lerman, M., Pike, R., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2015). ARSC guide to audio preservation. Eugene, OR: Association for Recorded Sound Collections; Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources; Washington, DC: National Recording Preservation Board of the Library of Congress. Byers, F.R. (2003) Care and handling of CDs and DVDs: A guide for librarians and archivists. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. CDP Digital Audio Working Group. (October 2006). Digital audio best practices version 2.1. Retrieved from http://sustainableheritagenetwork.org/digital-heritage/digital-audio-best-practices-version-21 Edmondson, R. (April 2004). Audiovisual archiving: Philosophy and principles. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Greene, M. A., & Meissner, D. (2005). More product, less process: Revamping traditional archival processing. The American Archivist, 68. 208-263. Jimenez, M., & Platt, L. (2004). Videotape identification and assessment guide. Austin, TX: Texas Commission on the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.arts.texas.gov/ Jones, J. (2008). Audiovisual preservation on a shoestring budget: A bag of tricks for the underfunded collections manager, part 1 (Technical Insert No. 152). Champaign, IL: Illinois Heritage Association. Jones, J. (Lecture, September 8, 2016) NFPF (National Film Preservation Foundation). (2004). The film preservation guide: The basics for archives, libraries, and museums. San Francisco, CA: National Film Preservation Foundation. Ranger, J. (2012, August 1). What’s your product: Assessing the suitability of a More Product, Less Process methodology for processing audiovisual collections. Audiovisual Preservation Solutions. [Web log Post]. Retrieved from https://www.avpreserve.com/papers-and-presentations/whats-your-product-assessing-the- suitability-of-a-more-product-less-process-methodology-for-processing-audiovisual-collections/ Wheeler, J. (2002). Videotape preservation handbook. 1-28. Association of Moving Image Archivists. Wheeler, J., (with Brothers, P.) (n.d.). Videotape preservation fact sheets. Hollywood, CA: Association of Moving Image Archivists. Preservation Audio and Video (Wheeler, 2002; CDP Digital Audio Working Group, 2006; Jones, 2016) v Time base corrector v Audio mixer v Analog to digital converter v Waveform monitor v Color bars v Vectorscope v Computer monitor, cables, hard drive Film (NFPF, 2004) v Loupe and lightbox, or film viewer v Rewinds v Splicing tools v Film cores, containers v Footage counter v Film cleaner, ruler v Flatbed editing table v Tabletop sound reader v Wet-gate printer v Optical printer v Digital restoration software v Redimensioning chemical treatments Viewing v Some media formats can only be played on specific players originally designed to play a certain carrier format, others can be played on multiple players v Knowledge, tools, and parts needed to repair broken machines v Many players no longer commercially available, archivists rely on hobbyists to construct new machines or buy used items (Jones, 2008) Examples (Brylawski et al, 2015; Jimenez & Platt, 2004; NFPF, 2004) v Grooved discs: Turntables v Magnetic tape: Playback decks are format specific v Video cassette: Playback machines are format specific v Film: Projection equipment is film gauge specific v Archives in hotter, more humid locations need to spend more time, effort, funds, and equipment on climate controlled storage for items, compared to countries with cooler and less humid climates • Increases difficulty of both preservation and access in these countries v Users in different countries do not have same means or knowledge to access different media formats • What form or forms of access best serves local users? • Streaming? DVD? VHS? v Differences in copyright laws over time and in different countries can present legal issues regarding access and preservation (NFPF, 2004) v Funding, access to digitization and playback equipment may vary systematically across different countries or continents v Lack of adequate training programs in all countries (Edmondson, 2004) • Many media archivists are self-taught • Many training programs located in 1st world countries Cool, dry, storage environment, with low relative humidity is best for preservation of various media formats Audio (Byers, 2003; Brylawski et al., 2015) v Optical media: CDs and DVDs • 10º to 20º C (50º to 68º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50% v Other audio formats • 8º to 12º C (46º to 53ºF) • Relative humidity: 25-35% Video (NFPF, 2004) v Videotape (analog and digital) • 4º to 12º C (40º to 54º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50% Audio (Brylawski, Lerman, Pike, & Smith, 2015) Cylinders v Wax v Celluloid Grooved Disc v Shellac v Vinyl v Lacquer v 78, 45, 33 Magnetic Tape v Open reel v 8-track v Compact cassette v Microcassette v DAT v Sony MiniDisc Analog Video (Wheeler, n.d.) Various tape widths, either cassette or open reel format, from multiple companies v Sony Betacam v S-VHS v Hi-8 v VHS Digital Video (Wheeler, n.d.) Various tape widths, thicknesses, manufactured by different companies v D5 v DVCPro v DCT v Digital Betacam v DV v MiniDV v DVCAM Film (NFPF, 2004) v Commercial films v Home movies Film Gauges v 35mm v 16mm v Regular 8mm v Super 8mm Film Stock v Nitrate v Acetate v Polyester • Black & white • Color Grinnell College: An Example of Inaccessible Resources Grinnell College Archival Media Items v Small liberal arts college in Grinnell, Iowa, United States v Collection of archival concerts that are not fully accessible to current students or alumni • Not fully cataloged • Not on accessible formats v Concerts are from the 1980’s to the mid 2000’s and are on DATs or cassette tapes v Between 400-500 DATs, containing about as many concerts, from 1900’s to mid 2000’s v In 2013 the College began to digitize these archival concerts to make them accessible to students v Grinnell College does not have the staff time or other resources to digitize both DAT and cassette tape archival concerts at once v DATs have priority in digitization • More unstable format (Brylawski et al., 2015) • More inaccessible to students, because they require a rarer player Digitization Process v Cataloging of concerts v Digitization occurs off-site with a commercial company v CD access copies and preservation masters on hard drives returned to Grinnell College v CDs integrated into collection, students can access materials Funding and Other Resources Funding v Lack of funding for archives v Lack of recognition of cultural and historical value of media items (Becker, 2007) Other Resources v Backlogs in many archives, streamlined approach needed to process them (Green & Meissner, 2005) v Streamlined intake process does not work well for audiovisual items • Intake and preservation processes often involve playing the items to determine content and extend of damages (Ranger, 2012) • Digitization requires full play through of item, with quality control monitoring v Audio-visual collections therefore require more processing than other types of collections Multiple Media Formats Film (NFPF, 2004) v Nitrate film (no sound track) • 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50% v Acetate film (no sound track) • 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50% v Polyester film (black & white, color) • 0º to 4º C (32º to 40º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50% v Film with sound track • 4º to 12º C (40º to 54º F) • Relative humidity: 30-50%