Microfilm has got to be the most annoying medium for reading anything! Every machine-reader loads differently. and many work quite badly. Then you have to adjust 800 different things to center and focus your image, and that's once you find the part you want to read in the first place--by slowly turning some crank or pushing some button for 15 minutes. If you want a copy you then have to take the whole reel off and reload it on a copier-reader and find what you need again. Then you can pay 25c (if you're lucky) for a print that is usually illegible with various contrast problems, blurry letters, and multiple stripes and lines running through it. Great. It just took you half an hour to photocopy one page from some magazine or newspaper or whatever.
Now I realize that back when Fred Flintstone was riding his dinosaur, microfilm was all technologically advanced and nicey nicey and--WOW--you could get a whole year of magazines on one reel and all that...
But ****, it's 2007. Can't they very easily digitize things now directly off microfilm? And why are they still microfilming stuff as we speak?
Thanks, I feel better.
[Edited 2007-04-24 05:42:51]