your worldwide imaging partner.
Micrographics & Hybrid Imaging Systems NEWSLETTER October 2000 – reprint
In most instances, clients can get a faster job, better quality, and lower prices when the volume is there.
Bob Schug, president, Lorien Technologies, the largest film scanning conversion house in the country, makes a solid case for not doing it yourself when large-scale conversions are involved.
"The only reason to do it in house is in cases where the film can't leave the premises." Schug said. "The reasons for going outside are the obvious ones –cost, time and expertise – plus not so obvious ones."
In terms of cost, he noted that a 1 million image conversion job could cost $15,000 - $20,000, based on a $.015 to $.02 per image rate. This is considerably less than what it would cost in-house. On a 5 million image job, cost savings are proportionately greater. For a one time or occasional project, Schug said all the economics favor going outside. This is true whether working from roll film or microfiche.
For example, Lorien is currently converting 14 million images for the state of New York. "Working from fiche is about three times more expensive for the client because volume is smaller and handling costs are higher with more involved quality control, but case savings compared to doing it in-house, keep roughly the same benefit rations," he said. Hence, New York's decision to go outside.
Cost Factors to Consider
Number one on the list of cost considerations is the equipment investment. "Production scanners are getting
better and more complex and you pay for the improvements, but it's not just the cost of the equipment,"
continued Schug.
"You also have to factor in the overhead, training and expertise. In a new installation, by the time you would have the equipment set up, an operator(s) trained, and the necessary QC work done, you'd have spent 3-4 months. Going outside, you would have had your job completed long before that." Schug also commented that if a job was big enough to justify buying a production scanner, just one scanner might be a risky proposition. "If something goes wrong, what do you do? What about downtime?"
By contrast, Lorien, where scanning 100 million images is routine, currently has 27 operating scanners and two more on order. "When you handle the volume we do, you have more flexibility and you develop expertise in-house users rarely achieve, even big title companies and insurance companies or government agencies."
Consider Output
"Scanning the film is only one part of the package," Schug commented, noting changes in output preferences over
the past 1-1/2 years. "More clients are taking TIFF or PDF images and putting them into on-line storage."
With the cost of hard drives and servers falling as capacity soars, digital storage is now a given. CD output
is still popular but the big growth is in images that can be put into on-line storage.
"However, scanning microfilm and storing the information on the internet, servers, hard drives, and CDs doesn't make the scanned microfilm obsolete." He said. "It's still there as the proven archival medium."
Microfilming on the Rise
"In fact, we've noted over the last year that more and more film is being created and subsequently scanned.
That's particularly true among government clients where the need for both immediate accessibility (digital) and
archival storage (film) is recognized. We also have major non-government clients where millions of pieces of
paper are being filmed to create legally-accepted archival film that's scanned and then the paper is discarded."
He also noted there are some client areas, such as legal work, where a lot of filming goes on to create film for scanning and the paper may be retained for various reasons.. "It still pays. The final cost of filming and scanning the film cam be comparable to just scanning paper, and you end up with both your daily use file (digital) and a high quality archival medium (microfilm)."
Is there a time that in house scanning makes sense? Schug, whose firm does subcontract work for many service bureaus across the country, suggests that smaller, non high speed production scanners can make sense for low volume jobs as well as scan-on-demand situations. That holds true for bureaus or end users: "but if you've got volume, a production conversion house can do it faster, cheaper, and better."
