Page 1 of 1
DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:06 pm
by MadDog
Are the files on DVD generally higher resolution and quality than what you can get from the microfilm ?
thanks,
Mad Dog
Re: DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:39 am
by william russ
Hi MadDog,
Yes! The DVDs are much better. I've used the old microfilm rolls for years and I just started getting the DVDs at the beginning of 2008. For resolution and print quality they cannot be beat. I am now in the process of converting the rest of the microfilm rolls to the jpg format.
Best regards, Bill
Re: DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:22 pm
by MadDog
I was debating which to get - but the DVD is sure a lot more convenient. I dont suppose you are getting any rolls relating to the west front battles of 1944 ?
thnaks,
Tom
Re: DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:29 am
by william russ
Hi MadDog,
I only have microfilm rolls in the 1939-1942 time period. That's the time period I'm concentrating on in relation to writing my books, especially the Eastern front.
Maybe someone else can help?
Best regards, Bill
Re: DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:58 pm
by MadDog
I figured if you were getting the same material as I was interested in we could split the cost.
So, each roll costs the same amount, no matter the size ?
thanks,
Mad Dog
Re: DVD vs microfilm
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:07 pm
by william russ
Hi MD,
Yes, each microfilm roll (or DVD) cost $65. It is aggravating to buy a roll for 65 bucks that only has a couple of hundred frames on it
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
. But 90 percent of the rolls have about 1000 frames.
Best regards, Bill