article: the preservation of acetate film materials: a...
TRANSCRIPT
Article: THE PRESERVATION OF ACETATE FILM MATERIALS: A Cost Benefit Analysis for Duplication and Cool/Cold Storage Author(s): Steven Puglia Topics in Photographic Preservation, Volume 6. Pages: 50-79 Compiler: Robin E. Siegel © 1995, Photographic Materials Group of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works. 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 320, Washington, DC 20005. (202) 452-9545, www.aic-faic.org. Under a licensing agreement, individual authors retain copyright to their work and extend publication rights to the American Institute for Conservation. Topics in Photographic Preservation is published biannually by the Photographic Materials Group (PMG) of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works (AIC). A membership benefit of the Photographic Materials Group, Topics in Photographic Preservation is primarily comprised of papers presented at PMG meetings and is intended to inform and educate conservation-related disciplines. Papers presented in Topics in Photographic Preservation, Vol. 6, have not undergone a formal process of peer review. Responsibility for the methods and materials described herein rests solely with the authors, whose articles should not be considered official statements of the PMG or the AIC. The PMG is an approved division of the AIC but does not necessarily represent the AIC policy or opinions.
THE PRESERVATION OF ACETATE FILM MATERIALS- A Cost Benefit Analysis for Duplication and CoolKold Storage
By Steven Puglia Photographic Preservation Specialist National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road, Room B810 College Park, MD 20910
Overview:
Institutions should perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the most cost effective approach or combination of approaches to preserve their holdings or collections of acetate film based photographic materials. Cost-benefit analyses can be conducted for specific collections or for an entire institution. Generally, the preservation of acetate film collections will require an approach that combines the systematic duplication of acetate film materials onto polyester based film with the cooVcold storage of original acetate film materials to extend the usable life. Often for small collections it will be most economical to duplicate the collections, while large acetate film collections will require a combined approach of cool/cold storage and a long-term plan for duplication.
Attached are a series of charts and forms designed to facilitate conducting a cost- benefit analysis. The specific information provided in the charts and derived from the forms is intended to provide basic guidance for deciding how best to approach the preservation of photographic film collections. The intent is to provide a framework that can be used to conduct a cost-benefit analysis comparing duplication with cool/cold storage. The same basic approach to cost-benefit analysis can be applied to other preservation management issues.
The cost to duplicate a collection includes the actual cost to duplicate each item, the cost to inspect the duplicates, and the cost to store the originals while they are being duplicated. The cost to store a collection at a specified set of environmental conditions includes the cost to build or lease a vault at the desired environmental conditions and the energy costs to run the vault at those conditions. The cost-benefit analysis can be used to compare the cost of storage at current environmental conditions to storage at colder temperatures which will provide a longer life expectancy for the film.
Generic duplication and storage costs have been worked up based on price quotations from vendors and are provided for various photographic formats. The cost analyses
listed here do not take into account inflation, an inflationary factor should be added to the formula for more accurate estimates. The generic estimates should be used for an initial analysis only, pricing specific to a particular collection or institution should be used for more accurate analyses.
Following the charts and forms are two examples of cost-benefit analyses, one for deteriorating microfilm and one for deteriorating still photo negatives.
The first example is 6400 rolls of 35mm microfilm that show the initial signs of deterioration. The estimated cost to duplicate the 6400 rolls is $63,780 or $152,240, the lower price is if only a simple technical quality inspection is conducted on the rolls of duplicate microfilm and the higher estimate includes a frame by frame verification of every roll of duplicate microfilm. The 6400 rolls could be stored for approximately 40 years (the estimated life expectancy at the following conditions for film in the initial stages of deterioration as cited in the IPI Acetate Film Storage Guide) at 55'F and 30% RH for an estimated cost of $33,600. The estimated life expectancy can be increased to 140 by storing the 6400 rolls at 40°F and 35% RH for an estimated cost of $313,600. In this example it is probably most practical and economical to duplicate all of the film, the theoretical life expectancy of the new polyester based duplicates is 500 years.
The second example is 3 million still photo negatives, a small percentage of which show the initial signs of deterioration. The estimated cost to duplicate all 3 million negatives by contact printing is $39.9 million and would take approximately 75 years to complete; the estimated price includes $2.4 million to store the originals at conditions that will extend the life expectancy to 75 years in order to complete the project. An alternative approach would be to use a large format, long-roll camera system to duplicate the negatives, the estimated cost would be $15.4 million and it would take approximately 30 years to complete the duplication; this estimated cost includes $360,000 to store the originals while they are being duplicated. Obviously, when a collection is this large, improved storage to extend the usable life of the acetate film negatives is essential to complete the project. The project could be completed in a shorter time, but it would require significantly more money and staff to do this. Storing the film at 55'F and 30% RH will provide an estimated life expectancy of 40 years at an estimated cost of $480,000; storing the film at 40°F and 35% RH will provide an estimated life expectancy of 140 years at an estimated cost of $4.48 million; and storing the film at 20'F and 30% RH will provide an estimated life expectancy of 400 years at an estimated cost of $24.3 million. For this size collection, storage at 40'F and 35% RH for 140 years is significantly less expensive than either duplication option and it could be combined with prioritized duplication of only the actively deteriorating negatives, the negatives that are of high value, and the negatives that are requested frequently.
Duplication Considerations:
Duplication is an essential part of any preservation plan for collections of photographic materials. Implement long-term duplication projects using available resources. Usually, resources will be limited and most duplication projects will be long-term. Duplicate only those materials that truly warrant duplication, evaluate collections/holdings and prioritize materials to be duplicated. The selection and planning for duplication should be based on three priorities- duplicate materials of high value, duplicate actively deteriorating materials, and duplicate frequently requested materials. Select the most economical method of duplication that meets all archival/technical requirements, including value of originals, quantity of materials to be duplicated, condition of materials to be duplicated, and the level of use/access required for the materials. Use polyester based duplicating film for all applications, including motion pictures. Polyester based duplicates are important to reduce the need for cool/cold storage. Polyester film is significantly more stable than acetate film, even at higher storage temperatures. Maintenance of a collection on acetate based film will always cost more for storage because of the need for cool/cold storage. When duplicating motion pictures, polyester based preservation masters should be placed in extended term storage and acetate based film may be used for printing masters, projection prints, and editing copies.
Acknowledgements:
Thank you to Sarah Wagner, Photograph Conservator, National Archives, for all the input and editorial assistance. Thank you to Paul Zimmerman, Harris Environmental Systems, to Carl Krotine, Environmental Growth Chamber, to Andy Shelter, Cargocaire Engineering, and to Jill Anderson, Norlake, Inc. for pricing and information on coolkold storage vaults. Thank you to Anthony Fantozzi, National Archives, to Ed McCarter, National Archives, and to Donna Colms, Library of Congress, for all the information and assistance provided. Thank you to Henry Wilhelm, Wilhelm Imaging Research, and the Image Permanence Institute for all of the information they have published on the stability of photographic materials that was used in creating this cost-benefit analysis system.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Charts and F o m :
52
COST COMPARISON FOR DUPLICATION VS. LONG-TERM STORAGE
stanp n l m Vdumc: Condltbn: - FOrlllBt: - Sbc: ounnutr: -
- - - I n k DeL Adv. DeC
- SUll Pho(0 0 0 0 - MbPnlm 0 0 0 - MoUm Rdum 0 0 0 - A a W 0 0 0 - X-RSS 0 0 0
Tolnl-
DUPLICATION
Optlon I- MsUlod d DupllcnCfoo
DuplknUon Cosll P a colt For Ilem: Duplkalbn:
A. Numba d Told I(snrDupll. cat: P a Y d
Y a n (0 C a t P a Duplkatc: YOU:
--
OpUon t Method d Duplkatbn
Dupllatbn culs P a C a t For I h : Duplkalbn:
A. Numbrr d Told ItaruDupll. cat: P a YOU+
Y a n to c u t P a Duplkak YOU:
Option 3- MsUlod d Duplkatbn
Duplkatlon call P a C a t For Ilem: Duplkatbn:
A. Numba d Told I(anr Dupll. Cost: Pa Yenr.:
Yan to CQal P a Dupllcntc: Y-:
-- Wehmlned by amount d hndtng awllnble, by rnpdty d l a b - ~ & ~ ~ duplkatlng mntatnlr, a Ihe life qstnncy at current sh%e m d l t b n s .
STORAGE ~~~~ ~~
opuon 1- o p u m 2- Opum 3- opuoa 4- opuon 5-
S W e Envlronmrnt:
Llfe Explanncu:
C a t lo Bulld or Law Vault:
slorage call P a Yar:
B. TolplSLorpBt colla- XdYapn To R d Llfe Explanncu: --
53
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
CO
STS
CO
ST T
O D
UPL
ICA
TE:
# of
item
s x
unit
cost
+ CO
ST T
O I
NSP
ECT:
#
of it
ems
x tim
e/ite
m
x ho
urlv
rat
e
+ CO
ST T
O S
TO
RE
DU
RIN
G D
UPL
ICA
TIO
N:
cubi
c ft
. x
cost
to s
tore
x
# of
yrs
.
I
- Tot
al C
ost
wl
wl
ESTI
MA
TED
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
CO
STS
FOR
SEL
ECTE
D B
&W
FO
RM
ATS
Form
at
Still
Pho
to:
-
4”x5
” -
5”x”
’ -
8 ”x 1
0 ”
Mic
rofil
m:
-
16
m, 1
00’ r
olls
-
35
m,
100’
rol
ls
Mot
ion
Pict
ures
: -
16
m, 1
OOO’
rol
ls
-
35m
m, 1
OOO’
rolls
Aer
ial:
-
5”,
200’
rol
ls
-
5”,
500’
rol
ls
-
9.5”
, 500
’ rol
ls
X-R
ays:
14”x
17”
Qua
ntitv
x $3
to $
12/n
eg.
x $3
to $
16/n
eg.
x $3
to $
18/n
eg.
x $8
to $
32/r
oll
x $8
to $
32/r
oll
x $3
50 to
$60
0/ro
ll x
$350
to $
60O
/roll
x $3
00 to
$45
0/ro
ll x
$500
to
$900
/rol
l x
$600
to $
1,20
0/ro
ll
x $3
to $
24/~
-ray
cost
of
Dup
licat
ion
INSP
ECTI
ON
OF
DU
PLIC
ATE
S
Still
Pho
tos-
15 to
20
min
. pe
r im
age
for t
echn
ical
qua
lity
insp
ectio
n.*
Use
ran
dom
sam
plin
g pr
oced
ure
to in
spec
t 10%
.
u1
cn
Mic
rofil
m-
5 m
in.
per
100’
roll
for
tech
nica
l qua
lity
insp
ectio
n.
60 m
in.
per
100’
roll
for
fram
e by
fra
me
(100
%) v
erifi
catio
n.
Mot
ion
Pict
ure-
20
to 3
0 m
in.
per
1000
’ rol
l of
film
for
tech
nica
l qu
ality
insp
ectio
n.
Aer
ial-
20 to
30
min
. pe
r 20
0’/5
00’ r
oll o
f fil
m f
or te
chni
cal q
ualit
y in
spec
tion.
X-R
ays-
15
to 2
0 m
in.
per
imag
e fo
r the
tech
nica
l qu
ality
ins
pect
ion.
U
se r
ando
m s
ampl
ing
proc
edur
e to
insp
ect 1
0%.
*Cou
rtes
y of
Don
na C
ollin
s, Pr
ints
+ Ph
otog
raph
s D
ivis
ion,
Lib
rary
of
Con
gres
s
ESTI
MA
TED
CO
ST F
OR
IN
SPEC
TIN
G D
UPL
ICA
TES
Hou
rly
Rate
Form
at
Qua
ntity
Still
Pho
to (
Sam
ple,
1%
):
-
4”x5
” x
33 h
rs./lO
OO
orig
. neg
s. x
-
5”x7
” x
33 h
rs./lO
OO
orig
. neg
s. x
-
8”x1
On
x 33
hrs.
/lOO
O o
rig. n
egs.
x
Mic
rofil
m:
Sam
ple-
-
16m
m, 1
00’ r
olls
x
0.08
hrs
./rol
l x
-
35m
m,
100’
rolls
x
0.08
hrs
./rol
l x
Vl 4
Fram
e by
fra
me,
100
% ve
rific
atio
n-
-
16m
m, 1
00’ r
olls
x
1.0
hrs./
roll
x -
35m
m,
100’
rolls
x
1.0 h
rs./r
oll
x
Mot
ion
Pict
ures
: -
16m
m, 1
000’
rol
ls
x 0.
5 hr
s./ro
ll x
-
35mm,
1000
’ rol
ls
x 0.
5 hr
s./ro
ll x
Aer
ial:
5’’’
200’
rol
ls
x 0.
5 hr
s./ro
ll x
-
5”’
500’
rol
ls
x 0.
5 hr
s./ro
ll x
-
9.5”
’ 50
0’ r
olls
x
0.5
hrs.
/roll
x
-
X-R
ays
(Sam
ple,
1%
):
-
14”x
17”
x 33
hrs
.110
00 o
rig. x
-ray
s x
STO
RA
GE
CO
STS
CO
ST T
O B
UIL
D V
AU
LT:
cubi
c fo
otag
e x
cost
to b
uild
or
C
OST
TO
LEA
SE V
AU
LT:
cubi
c fo
otaE
e x
cost
to le
ase
x #
of v
ears
to d
uplic
ate
or
cubi
c fo
otay
e x
cost
to le
ase
x #
of v
ears
to r
each
life
exp
ecta
ncv
+ ENER
GY
CO
ST T
O R
UN
VA
ULT
: cu
bic
foot
aEe
x en
erpv
use
d x
com
m.
rate
x
# of
yea
rs to
dud
icat
e or
cu
bic
foot
age
x en
erpv
use
d x
com
m.
rate
x
# of
yea
rs to
rea
ch li
fe e
xpec
tanc
v
Tota
l Cos
t
ESTI
MA
TED
STO
RA
GE
VO
LUM
E FO
R S
ELEC
TED
FO
RM
ATS
AN
D
QU
AN
TITI
ES
Form
at
Still
Pho
to:
4”x5
” 5”
x”’
8”xl
O”
Mic
rofil
m:
16m
m, 1
00’ r
olls
Ln
35m
m,
100’
rol
ls
w
Mot
ion
Pict
ures
: 16
mm
, 100
0’ r
olls
3
5m
, 10
00’ r
olls
Aer
ial: S
’, 20
0’ r
olls
S
’, 50
0’ r
olls
9.
5”, 5
00’ r
olls
X-R
ays:
14”x
17”
Oua
ntity
x 0.
0009
cu.
ft./
neg.
* x
0.00
3 cu
. ft./
neg.
* x
0.00
3 cu
. ft./
neg.
*
x 0.
02 c
u. f
t./ro
ll x
0.04
cu.
ft./
roll
x 0.
07 c
u. f
t./ro
ll x
0.14
cu.
ft./
roll*
*
x 0.
06 c
u. f
thol
l x
0.16
cu.
ft./
roll
x 0.
33 c
u. f
t,/ro
ll
x 0.
006
x-ra
ydcu
. ft.
Stor
age
Vol
ume
Jcub
ic fe
et)
*Cou
rtes
y E
d M
cCar
ter,
Stil
l Pic
ture
s B
ranc
h, N
AR
A.
**W
ilhel
m, H
enry
. T
he P
erm
anen
ce a
nd C
are
of C
olor
Pho
toer
aphs
.
CO
ST T
O B
UIL
D V
AU
LT B
Y S
QU
AR
E FO
OTA
GE
Size
of
Vau
lt is
a. f
t,)
20
80
200
cn 0
2000
Tem
p./R
H
60'F/ 50%
35%
20%
4OoF/ 50%
35%
20%
20 OF
/ 50%
35%
20%
60"F/ 50%
35%
20%
40'F/ 50%
35%
20%
2OoF/ 50%
35%
20%
Ran
ge o
f co
st ($
1
35,000 to 85,000
45,000 to
85,000
55,000 to
85,000
40,000 to 88,000
50,000 to 88,000
62,000 to
92,000
82,000 to
112,000
82,000 to 112,000
82,000 to
112,000
160,000 t
o 230,000
160,000 t
o 245,000
160,000 to 270,000
175,000 t
o 250,000
175,000
to 260,000
175,000
to 280,000
173,000 t
o 260,000
180,000 to 270,000
187,000
to 280,000
Med
ian
GQ
sLm
2700 es
t.
4200 es
t.
60,000
65,000
70,000
64000
69,000
77,000
97,000
97,000
97,000
195,000
202,500
215,000
212,500
217,500
227,500
216,000
225,000
234,000
STO
RA
GE
CA
PAC
ITY
PER
SQ
. FT.
Gen
eral
Off
ice
1 cu
. ft./
sq. f
t.
Nat
iona
l Arc
hive
s at
Col
lege
Par
k 2.
9 cu
. ft./
sq. f
t.
Rec
ords
Cen
ters
, N
atio
nal A
rchi
ves
5.6
cu. f
tJsq
. ft
.
CO
ST T
O B
UIL
D V
AU
LT P
ER C
UB
IC F
OO
T O
F R
ECO
RD
S
Su
e of
R
ange
of
Med
ian
Vau
lt St
orag
e C
ap.
Stor
age
Cap
. {s
a. f
t.1
Jcu.
ft.)
Jc
u. f
t.)
Tern
D./R
H
20
20 to
60
40
4"C/no RH
80
80 to
240
16
0 4
C/n
o RH
200
200
to 6
00
400
2000
20
00 to
600
0 40
00
60"F
/ 50%
35
%
20%
40
°F/5
0%
35%
20
%
2OoF
/50%
35
%
20%
60"F
/ 50%
35
%
20%
40
"F/5
0%
35%
20
%
2OoF
/50%
35
%
20%
Ran
ge o
f co
st (
$/cu
, ft.1
68 t
o 13
5
26 to
52
102
to 2
95
112
to 3
25
122
to 3
55
110
to 3
20
121
to 3
50
131
to 3
80
153
to 4
45
167
to 4
85
183
to 5
30
34 to
98
35 to
102
36
to
106
36 to
105
38
to
110
39 to
114
37
to
108
39 t
o 11
2 40
to 1
17
Med
ian
Cos
t ($
/cu.
ft.)
102
39
198
218
238
215
236
238
299
326
356
66
68
71
70
74
76
72
76
78
MED
IAN
CO
ST T
O B
UIL
D V
AU
LT P
ER C
UB
IC F
OO
T
Tem
p/R
H
60"F/50%
35%
20%
40"F/ 50%
35%
20%
20"Fl 50%
35%
20%
400
cu. f
t. {$
leu.
ft.)
198
218
238
215
236
256
299
326
356
4000 c
u. f
t. {$
leu.
ft.1
66
68
71
70
74
76
72
76
78
ESTI
MA
TED
STO
RA
GE
CO
STS
FOR
SEL
ECTE
D S
TOR
AG
E EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TS
Stor
age
Env
iron
men
ts
Off
ice,
Air
-con
ditio
ned
70°F
at 5
0% R
H
Coo
l Sto
rage
65
°F at
35%
to 3
0% R
H
Coo
l Sto
rage
/Fro
st-f
ree R
efri
gera
tor
35°F
to 4
0" F
at
35%
RH
Col
d St
orag
e 20
°F to
25"
F a
t 30
% R
H
Col
d St
orag
e 0°
F at
30%
RH
Stor
age
Cos
ts
(per
cub
ic ft
. per
yea
r)
$ 1.
00"
$ 2.
40**
$ 8.
00**
*
$ 15
.00
to 2
0.00
$30.
00**
*
*Est
imat
ed fr
om N
AR
A F
eder
al R
ecor
d C
ente
rs H
andb
ook.
**
Est
imat
e for
gen
eral
sto
rage
con
ditio
ns a
t the
Nat
iona
l Arc
hive
s at C
olle
ge P
ark.
**
*Wilh
elm
, Hen
ry.
The
Per
man
ence
and
Car
e of
Col
or P
hoto
eraD
hs.
ESTI
MA
TED
EN
ERG
Y U
SAG
E
Size
of
Ran
ge o
f M
edia
n V
ault
Stor
age
Cap
. St
orag
e C
ap.
Isu.
ft.1
Ic
u. f
t.)
Icu.
ft.)
200
200
to 6
00
400
2000
20
00 t
o 60
00
4000
Tem
p./R
H
60"F
/ 50%
35
%
20%
40
"F/ 5
0%
35%
20
%
2OoF
/50%
35
%
20%
60"F
/ 50%
35
%
20%
40
"Fl 5
0%
35%
20
%
20"F
/ 50%
35
%
20%
Ran
ge o
f K
WH
Use
d
3.8 t
o 8
7 to
9.5
7
to 1
1.6
10 to
13.
6 10
to 1
5.2
10 to
21.
6 20
to
34
24 t
o 41
32
to 5
4
10.3
to 3
0 14
.2 to
30
22.1
to
30
22.2
to
30
28.3
to
32.3
30
to 4
5.2
33 to
56
39 to
66
52 to
90
Med
ian
KW
H U
sed
5.9
8.2
9.3
11.8
12
.6
15.8
27
32
38
20.1
5 22
.1
26
26.1
30
.3
37.6
44
53
70
MED
IAN
EN
ERG
Y U
SAG
E PE
R C
UB
IC F
OO
T
Tem
p./R
H
6OoF
/ 50%
35%
20%
4OoF/ 50%
35%
20%
20"Fl 50%
35%
20%
400
cu. f
t. W
WH
lcu.
ft.)
5.9
8.2
9.3
11.8
12.6
15.8
27
32
38
4000
cu.
ft.
KW
Hlc
u. f
t.1
20.15
22.1
26
26.1
30.3
37.6
44
53
70
CO
ST C
OM
PAR
ISO
N F
OR
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
VS,
LO
NG
-TER
M. S
TOR
AG
E
Form
at:
Stor
age
-
Size
: Q
uant
ity:
Vol
ume:
- St
ill P
hoto
- M
icro
fiim
- M
otio
n Pi
ctur
e - Ae
rial
- X-
Ray
s
Film
Con
ditio
n:
Init.
Det
. A
dv.
Det
. G
ood
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot
al-
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
O
ptio
n 1-
Met
hod
of D
uplic
atio
n
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(
)Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tota
l Ite
ms
Dup
li.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Y
ear*
: D
uplic
ate:
Ye
ar:
Opt
ion
2-
Met
hod
of D
uplic
atio
n
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
()
Sam
ple
D
urin
g To
tal
Item
s D
upli.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Y
ear*
: D
uplic
ate:
Y
w:
Opt
ion
3- M
etho
d of
Dup
licat
ion
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(
)Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tota
l Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Year*:
Dup
licat
e:
Year:
Item
s D
upli.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
*Det
erm
ined
by
amou
nt o
f fu
ndin
g av
aila
ble,
by
capa
city
of l
abor
ator
y du
plic
atin
g m
ater
ials
, or
the
life
expe
ctan
cy a
t cur
rent
st
orag
e co
nditi
ons.
STO
RA
GE
Opt
ion
1-
Opt
ion
2-
Opt
ion
3-
Opt
ion
4-
Opt
ion
5-
Stor
age
Envi
ronm
ent:
Life
Ex
pect
ancy
:
Cos
t to
Build
or
Lease V
ault:
Stor
age
Cos
ts
Per Year:
B.
Tot
al S
tora
ge
cost
s- #
of Y
ears
To
Rea
ch L
ife
Expe
ctan
cy:
Tota
l Sto
rage
co
sts-
#of
Years
To
Dup
licat
e:
ESTI
MA
TED
LIF
E EX
PEC
TAN
CY
FO
R N
EW C
ELLU
LOSE
AC
ETA
TE
FILM
- Fr
om th
e IP
I St
oraE
e G
uide
to A
ceta
te F
ilm
Con
ditio
n St
orag
e of
Film
E
nvir
onm
ent
New
: 70
°F at
50%
RH
65
°F at
30%
to 3
5% R
H
60°F
at 5
0% R
H
60°F
at 3
5% R
H
60°F
at 2
0% R
H
55°F
at 3
0% RH
40°F
at 5
0% R
H
40°F
at 3
5% R
H
40°F
at 2
0% RH
35°F
to 4
0°F
at 3
5% RH
25°F
at 3
0% R
H
20°F
at 5
0% RH
20°F
at 3
5% R
H
20°F
at 2
0% R
H
0°F
at 3
0% R
H
Life
Exp
ecta
ncy
Jvea
rs)"
40
90
80
112
175
200
350
525
800
800
> 15
00
> 15
00
> 15
00
> 15
00
> 15
00
*For
new
film
the
LE
rat
ings
are
the
appr
oxim
ate
time
to th
e on
set
of v
ineg
ar s
yndr
ome,
the
usab
le li
fe o
f th
e film w
ill b
e lo
nger
tha
n th
ese
estim
ates
.
ESTI
MA
TED
LIF
E EX
PEC
TAN
CY
FO
R D
ETER
IOR
ATI
NG
CEL
LULO
SE
AC
ETA
TE F
ILM
- Fr
om th
e IP
I Sto
rage
Gui
de f
or A
ceta
te F
ilm
Con
ditio
n St
orag
e of
Film
E
nvir
onm
ent
Initi
al S
igns
of
Det
erio
ratio
n:
70°F
at 5
0% R
H
65°F
at 3
0% to
35%
RH
60
°F at
50%
RH
60
°F at
35%
RH
60
°F at
20%
RH
55°F
at 3
0% R
H
40°F
at 5
0% RH
40°F
at 3
5% R
H
40°F
at 2
0% R
H
35°F
to 3
8°F
at 3
5% R
H
25°F
at 3
0% R
H
20°F
at 5
0% R
H
20°F
at 3
5% RH
20°F
at 2
0% RH
0°F
at 3
0% RH
Life
Exp
ecta
ncy
{vea
rs)*
5 15
10
25
45
40
50
140
230
130
> 40
0 >
400
> 40
0 >
400
> 40
0
*For
deg
radi
ng film
the
LE r
atin
gs a
re th
e ap
prox
imat
e tim
e fo
r th
e fr
ee a
cidi
ty to
dou
ble,
the
usa
ble
life
of
the film is li
kely
to b
e lo
nger
than
est
imat
ed.
..
G
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
4
W
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber o
f C
osts
Per
C
ost F
or
(x) S
ampl
e D
urin
g To
tal
Item
s Dup
li.
Yea
rs to
C
ost P
er
Item
: D
uplic
atio
n:
( )
100
%
Dup
licat
ion:
C
ost:
Per
Yea
r*:
Dup
licat
e:
Yea
r:
bs.
36
d SS, 6
80
. oo
d 3
,6 3
6. b
o
gy
za. 0
0
# 63
, ;F
W.o
o
% Y
30
0
2
1.s
Ir ~Z,S20.00
ZhJy
,-.
z 4
21
,26
0.0
0
Opt
ion
2-
Met
hod
of D
uplic
atio
n to /I
- -le - t-
6
'1,
S; 13-
,d=
J->
*
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
cost
s Per
C
ost F
or
( )S
ampl
e D
urin
g To
tal
Item
s D
upli.
Y
ears
to
cost
Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(X
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Y
ear*
: D
uplic
ate:
Y
ear:
tY 6
.3-0
Opt
ion
3- M
etho
d of D
uplic
atio
n
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Sto
rqe
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(
)Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tota
l Ite
ms
Dup
li.
Yea
rs to
C
ost P
er
Item
: D
uplic
atio
n:
( )
100
%
Dup
licat
ion:
C
ost:
Per
Yea
r*:
Dup
licat
e:
Yea
r:
*Det
erm
ined
by
amou
nt o
f fu
ndin
g av
aila
ble,
by
capa
city
of
labo
rato
ry d
uplic
atin
g m
ater
ials
, or
the
life
expe
ctan
cy a
t cur
rent
st
orag
e co
nditi
ons.
74
EXA
MPL
E 1
Film
:
Con
ditio
n:
Stor
age
Vol
. :
6400
rol
ls of
35m
m (
100'
rol
ls) m
icro
film
signs
of i
nitia
l det
erio
ratio
n
280
cu. f
t.
A.
Cos
t to
Dup
licat
e:
wi 71
Tec
h. I
nsp.
Onl
y-
$ 63
,780
1.
5 yr
s. to
dup
licat
e C
ost/y
r.-
$ 42
,520
.00
100%
Ver
ifica
tion-
$
152,
240
1.5
to 2
yrs
. to
dupl
icat
e C
ost/y
r.-
$ 76
,120
.00
Stor
age
to L
ife E
xpec
tanc
y:
B.
Cos
t- $1
400
$ 10
,080
$
33,6
00
$ 31
3,60
0 $
1.8
mill
ion
Life
Exp
ecta
ncy-
5
yrs.
15
yrs
. 40
yrs
. 14
0 yr
s. >
400
yrs.
Con
ditio
ns-
70"F
/35%
65"
F/3
5% 5
5"F/
30%
40°
F/3
5% 2
0"F/
30%
76
DU
PLIC
ATI
ON
O
ptio
n 1-
Met
hod
of D
uplic
atio
n Lo rr
t4ct
r' 4
-d
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(g)
Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tota
l Ite
ms
Dup
li.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Yea?:
Dup
licat
e:
Yw:
Opt
ion 2- M
etho
d of
Dup
licat
ion
(O
h J
- O
N ca-
$3
j4-n
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(%
) Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tota
l
4 #
13
.Sr-
Ylk
~h
# I
.Sm
~ll
~o
, k 3
60
jam
#
fS.Y
m;il
p#n
$ l
O&
,0-
3
0
R 5
13
,33
3. 0
4
Item
s D
upli.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Year*:
Dup
licat
e:
Yea
r:
Opt
ion
3- M
etho
d of
Dup
licat
ion
Cos
t for
C
ost f
or
Dup
licat
ion
Insp
ectio
n:
Stor
age
A.
Num
ber
of
Cos
ts P
er
Cos
t For
(
)Sam
ple
Dur
ing
Tot
al
Item
s D
upli.
Years
to
Cos
t Per
Ite
m:
Dup
licat
ion:
(
) 10
0 %
D
uplic
atio
n:
Cos
t: Pe
r Year*:
Dup
licat
e:
Yea
r:
*Det
erm
ined
by
amou
nt o
f fu
ndin
g av
aila
ble,
by
capa
city
of
labo
rato
ry d
uplic
atin
g m
ater
ials
, or
the
life
expe
ctan
cy a
t cur
rent
st
orag
e co
nditi
ons.
0
3 ,
78
EXA
MPL
E 2
Film
:
Con
ditio
n:
Stor
age
Vol
.:
3 m
illio
n st
ill p
hoto
neg
ativ
es
sign
s of
initi
al d
eter
iora
tion
4000
cu.
ft,
A.
Cos
t to
Dup
licat
e:
Con
tact
Pri
ntin
g-
$ 39
.9 m
illio
n 75
yrs
, to
dupl
icat
e C
ost/y
r.-
$ 53
2,00
0.00
Lon
g-ro
ll C
amer
a-
$ 15
.4 m
illio
n 30
yrs
. to
dupl
icat
e C
ost/y
r.-
$ 51
3,33
3.00
Stor
age
to L
ife E
xpec
tanc
y:
B.
Cos
t- $
20,0
00
$ 14
4,00
0 $
480,
000
$ 4.
48 m
il. $
24.
3 m
il.
Life
Exp
ecta
ncy-
5
yrs.
15
yrs
. 40
yrs
. 14
0 yr
s.
> 40
0 yr
s.
Con
ditio
ns-
70 ' F
/35%
65 ' F/
35%
55 ' F/
30%
40 ' F/
35%
20 ' F/
30%