Lessons Learned: Digitization of Cooke County Ledgers/67531... · Lessons Learned: Digitization of Cooke County Ledgers University of North Texas Libraries Contributors: Trista Barker

Lessons Learned: Digitization of Cooke County Ledgers

University of North Texas Libraries

Contributors:

Trista Barker Digital Imaging Technician-Microfilm

Reyes Berrios Graduate Library Assistant

Sarah Lynn Fisher Project Coordinator, Oklahoma Historical Newspapers

Ana Krahmer Coordinator, Digital Newspaper Program

Hannah Tarver Department Head, Digital Projects Unit

Lessons Learned – 2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Workflow ................................................................................................................................................... 3

III. Evaluation of Materials/Vendor Communication .................................................................................... 5

IV. Microfilm Management ........................................................................................................................... 6

Microfilm Evaluation ................................................................................................................................. 6

Microfilm Scanning ................................................................................................................................... 8

V. Supplementary Scanning of Ledgers ........................................................................................................ 9

VI. Digital File Management .......................................................................................................................... 9

File Organization ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Quality Control ........................................................................................................................................ 10

VII. Metadata and Upload ........................................................................................................................... 10

VIII. Recommendations for Future Projects ................................................................................................ 12

Project Coordination ............................................................................................................................... 12

Evaluating and Scanning Microfilm ......................................................................................................... 12

Suggestions for Future Projects .............................................................................................................. 13

IX. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix A – Original Inventory of Ledgers ............................................................................................... 17

Appendix B – List of Microfilming Specifications ........................................................................................ 20

Appendix C – Digital Projects Unit Scanning Standards .............................................................................. 21

Appendix D – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, In Progress ......................................................................... 22

Appendix E – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, Complete ........................................................................... 23

Appendix F – Field Values Used in the Super-Template Metadata Record ................................................ 24


I. Introduction

In December 2010, the University of North Texas (UNT) Archives received a grant from the National

Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) to digitize and host several rare and unique

collections representative of the Civil War era and its effect in Texas. The project, titled “The Civil War

and its Aftermath: Diverse Perspectives,” contains a variety of historic items including letters, diaries,

military records, legal documents, and court ledgers from Cooke County, Texas.

The UNT Archives partnered with the UNT Libraries Digital Projects Unit (DPU), which managed all stages

of the digitization. Most of the items were digitized on flatbed scanners; however, due to the size of the

ledgers, it was determined that the best way to digitize them would be to have them microfilmed and

then to scan the microfilm instead of handling the full ledgers. In this case, scanning from microfilm

rather than the originals was also faster and more cost-effective, and it provided the added benefit of

creating a preservation microfilm master of each ledger. This paper describes and examines the process

the DPU implemented to digitize the Cooke County ledger collection; in doing so, it provides insight into

the problems one might encounter, as well as recommendations for institutions that may be considering

similar digital projects.

II. Workflow

For this project, the DPU combined workflows previously established and regularly implemented in the

process of digitizing rare bound volumes and newspapers from print materials. The first half of the

workflow below conforms to DPU standards for microfilm scanning (see Appendix C – Digital Projects

Unit Scanning Standards). Once the digital images were created from microfilm, the covers and any

additional scans were made from the print copies using a Zeutschel planetary scanner that can

accommodate large and fragile materials. The digital objects were then organized using an in-house file

naming system implemented by the DPU for journals, books, and other types of bound volumes.


Metadata was created using an XML “super-template,” and records were completed by students in-

house.

Overview of the workflow:

1. Inventory ledgers: UNT Archives compiled an inventory list of the ledgers that confirmed the

contents of the collection. The DPU used this inventory at various stages in the workflow to

identify and track the physical materials and digital objects.

2. Communicate with microfilm creator (vendor): After consulting the inventory, the DPU

communicated the specifications and requirements for filming to the vendor.

3. Deliver ledgers to vendor: UNT Archives organized transportation of the materials to the

vendor by car. After receiving the ledgers, the vendor created microfilm from the physical

materials.

4. Retrieve ledgers and reels after filming: When microfilm creation was complete, the vendor

shipped the newly-created microfilm to the DPU. The vendor delivered the microfilm masters

along with a second-generation (2N) negative duplicate of each reel. At a later date, UNT

Archives organized the retrieval of the ledgers from the vendor.

5. Scan microfilm: Microfilm scanning took place in the Digital Projects Newspaper Unit on a Mekel

Mach V microfilm scanner, which can scan one full reel of microfilm in under 30 minutes.

6. Split/process page scans: The scanning technician split the captured images into orderly pages

and processed them using software to optimize image quality.

7. Quality control (QC) check images and track missing pages: The Digital Projects Newspaper Unit

performed a QC check to ensure that the digital files faithfully represented the physical items.

8. Re-scan covers, full-color pages, and pages missed during filming: In addition to adding missing

images discovered during QC, full-color scans were made to supplement the grayscale microfilm

images and provide attractive thumbnails for online viewing.


9. Magick-number/organize files for online viewing: DPU staff changed file names to provide

local, unique identifiers to individual scanned image files in preparation for the online

environment.

10. Make note of ledger heights for metadata: This information was recorded for inclusion in the

physical description section of the metadata record.

11. Create super-template file: A DPU metadata specialist created a generic metadata record

containing information that applied to the entire ledger collection.

12. Return ledgers to storage: The UNT Archives prepared the ledgers for long-term storage.

13. Upload digital collection: DPU staff uploaded the digital files to the server for The Portal to

Texas History (http://texashistory.unt.edu); at this time, the ledgers were hidden from the

public pending completed metadata records.

14. After upload, create metadata records: Students completed metadata records for individual

items within the collection, adding unique, item-level information to the fields missing from the

super-template record.

III. Evaluation of Materials/Vendor Communication

Employees of the DPU evaluated the physical collection prior to microfilming. Data they collected

included the number of volumes along with their approximate size, page count, and condition. Two

employees of the UNT Archives, Perri Hamilton and Richard Himmel, also created a document noting the

exact title, size, and page count of each ledger (See Appendix A – Original Inventory of Ledgers). This

information was used to determine the filming requirements (See Appendix B – List of Microfilming

Specifications). For example, many of the ledgers had pages with preprinted information but no

handwritten notations. In order to faithfully represent the original volume as a digital object, UNT

requested that all of the pages should be filmed, regardless of their content. UNT also requested the

smallest possible reduction ratio to generate a higher resolution for the digital images. Since the ledgers


were bound, they required 2B filming orientation: both pages of the open book comprise one captured

image on the microfilm and are positioned with the text running horizontally across the film (see Figure

1).

Figure 1. 2B filming orientation: the open bound volume is turned horizontally to capture both open pages as one image.

Based on previous collaboration, the DPU chose the Oklahoma Historical Society (OHS) as the vendor to

create the microfilm of the ledger collection. UNT communicated the filming requirements and the

ledger inventory to the vendor via email prior to microfilming. OHS confirmed the filming standards

prior to receiving the materials and filming the ledgers. The UNT Archives organized the transport of the

physical ledgers, delivered to the OHS, located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to be filmed.

IV. Microfilm Management

Microfilm Evaluation

When the microfilm creation was complete, the Digital Projects Newspaper Unit assigned a unique

number to each reel and evaluated the microfilm, tracking data about the reels on microfilm evaluation

sheets. Information including the title, bar code or reel number, page count, reduction ratio, and original

size of the object was recorded on the sheets (see Figure 2).

Top of page Top of page


Figure 2. Blank example of a reel information sheet used for microfilm evaluation.

Staff members also compared the page count from the microfilm to the page count on the pre-filming

inventory and noticed that pages had been skipped during microfilming. This highlights the merit of

reviewing microfilm prior to scanning. Although staff members were not able to compare the microfilm

to the original ledgers at that time, it appeared that most ledgers were not missing a significant number

of pages.

Since the microfilming process does not always allow for quick turnaround, DPU staff had to consider

the time that it would take to have items re-filmed to include the missing pages versus the time that

would be spent to rescan individual pages from the print items if they were not re-filmed. Staff decided

that the number of missing pages did not justify re-filming the collection in its entirety; however, OHS


re-filmed two of the ledgers completely. For those re-filmed ledges, the number of missing pages on the

microfilm for those objects exceeded the acceptable limit staff had chosen for this project, roughly 25 or

more missing pages.

Microfilm Scanning

After the evaluation of the microfilm, the reels were turned over to the department’s microfilm imaging

technician who used the reel information sheets to prepare items for scanning. The technician

employed the reduction ratio noted on the information sheets to reproduce the images at the proper

pixels per inch (ppi), and she used the reel identification numbers to arrange the file and directory

structures for the digital images. Once the technician created these preliminary settings, she scanned

the microfilm using Quantum Scan software.

After each reel was scanned, the technician used a program called Quantum Process to split the two

pages on each image into individual page files. Adjustments to the contrast and background were made

within the software settings to ensure the best web presentation outcomes. The scans then went

through a final processing stage with Prizm Gray software, which de-skews (straightens) each image.

At this point, the scanning and processing stages were complete, and the individual page files were

separated into folders made for each book, to be handled as individual digital objects. A student

assistant separated the digital files, putting the images for each book into unique folders within the

parent folder for the microfilm reel. The student then checked each folder against the reel information

sheet for correct titles, dates, and volume numbers. Images for every ledger underwent a visual quality

control check to determine if files were duplicated, blurred, or missing pages. If pages were duplicated,

the best image was used and the other deleted; blurred or missing pages were noted, and rescans were

made at the next stage in the workflow.


V. Supplementary Scanning of Ledgers

At the start of the project, DPU staff determined that the covers of the ledgers should be scanned in

color on the Zeutschel OS 10000 planetary scanner to create more aesthetic thumbnails and to provide

a realistic representation of the originals. When staff members discovered that some pages had not

been filmed by the vendor, those pages were added to the queue to be scanned on the Zeutschel

scanner, along with any pages that had not been filmed at a high enough quality to meet DPU standards.

The supplementary scanning portion of the project was managed by a DPU Graduate Library Assistant

(GLA). Before scanning the ledgers, he evaluated the information contained in the reel information

sheets and inspected the condition of each ledger. Due to the age of the ledgers, many had deteriorated

pages and bindings that required careful manipulation while scanning to prevent further damage. One

precaution to address the fragility of the ledgers was to temporarily lock the scanner glass upright rather

than allowing it to rest on top of the pages as usual. The GLA followed DPU scanning standards in

scanning all covers and missing pages (see Appendix C – Digital Projects Unit Scanning Standards).

VI. Digital File Management

File Organization

After completion of all scanning, the digital files were renamed using ACDSee 9 Photo Manager

software. To process paginated books or items that have many pages, the DPU uses a standard file-

naming convention (termed “magick-numbering”) that orders the pages for display online. Each file

number contains eight digits: the first four digits represent the sequence of the files in the original

ledger (this includes the covers and pages without numbers); the next four digits indicate the

pagination, if there are page numbers printed in the ledger. For example, the file name “03070301”

designates the 307th image in the sequence of the book, which has the printed page number of “301” on

the physical page. In cases where the ledger contained letters or items glued to a page, a first scan was

taken of the entire page including any attached items. Unless items were glued entirely to the page, a


subsequent scan was taken of the back of each inserted item. In such cases, an alphabetic letter was

assigned to the end of the filename (e.g., 03070301a and 03080301b).

Quality Control

During the supplementary scanning process, the GLA also performed a quality control inspection of each

digital image against the physical ledger pages to ensure that all the pages were properly digitized; this

QC portion of the process included pictures and letters contained in the ledger. The inspection step

revealed that yet more pages than originally expected were omitted, including pages without manual

entries as well as several pages that contained text. All omitted pages were then scanned, and their

images were added in the proper sequence to the item’s folder.

For ledgers that did not have printed page numbers, it was necessary to inspect each digitized image

against the physical object even more carefully. The digital files of those ledgers were named with the

sequence number only, rather than a full magick-number (e.g., 0307).

In some cases, objects inserted in the physical ledger were removed and microfilmed at the end of the

book. This meant that the digital image files were not in the same order as the print copy and their

contextual relevance to the event they represented was lost. Those items were rescanned and

numbered according to their place and sequence inside the ledger as appropriate.

VII. Metadata and Upload

Once the file scanning was complete, the DPU department head created a metadata super-template file,

which is a generic XML metadata record that contains only elements common to all items in a collection

(see Appendix F—Field Values Used in the Super-Template Metadata Record). As part of the upload

process, the system created a blank record for each ledger and propagated fields with the pre-filled,

commonly-shared information from the super-template record. In this case, super-templates were used

to load the files into the online system as quickly as possible since the processing and upload stage can


be time-consuming for items as large as the ledgers. Uploading the files ensured that individuals working

on the project from other departments could have access to the records if the metadata needed to be

completed more quickly than DPU staff could accommodate since the DPU was primarily responsible for

the digitization aspects of the grant project. Members from all departments involved in the Civil War

grant project had access to the metadata editing interface (see Figure 3, below).

Figure 3. Editing metadata of an individual item via a web browser interface.

After the ledgers were uploaded and accessible on the metadata record editing system, DPU assistants

followed collection-specific guidelines to create records for each individual ledger. For example, the title

of each ledger was created according to the same formula: [Kind of ledger, Court, Cooke County, dates],

e.g., [Bar Docket and Appearances, Civil and Criminal District Court, Cooke County, 1871-1873]. The

students then made each ledger publicly accessible on the Portal as the record was completed.


VIII. Recommendations for Future Projects

To support future endeavors, the following section offers observations and suggestions based on an

analysis of the DPU’s experience in managing the Cooke County ledger digitization.

Project Coordination

Projects with many pieces that take place in multiple stages require a clear chain of command. The

Project Manager of this particular grant, responsible for overseeing all of the grant work and keeping the

project on track, retired soon after the work began. To complete the work within the allotted time,

responsibilities had to be delegated across several people with differing skillsets, though no individual

was able to take full leadership of the project. This project required collaboration within the department

(i.e., between the Digital Projects Lab and the Digital Projects Newspaper Unit) as well as coordination

with members of other divisions in the Libraries, who were tasked with transporting the physical ledgers

and reporting on the progress of digitization. These factors led to some communication and workflow

wrinkles that might have been prevented had one leader been able to serve as a hub of communication.

Evaluating and Scanning Microfilm

Information on the microfilm reel information sheets did not always appear to match the physical

ledgers and scanned digital files. This problem was rooted in two places: first, the physical objects that

had been microfilmed by the vendor were not available to the DPU to compare to the microfilmed

version during microfilm evaluation; second, though it was communicated and confirmed with the

microfilm vendor that the entirety of every volume should be filmed (including blank pages), dozens of

blank pages as well as some with content were missing. The team also requested that the vendor

provide a small reduction ration in the filming process, but the images on the microfilm turned out to be

much smaller than what the digital team would consider standard and most useful.

To manage the problems that simply could not be resolved, such as missing pages in the microfilm, we

used worksheets to track items as they were being processed so that persons working on the grant

could follow the status of the items (see Appendix D – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, In Progress and

Appendix E – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, Complete). Although the regular DPU workflow does not


usually incorporate spreadsheets, they were used in this case as a way to track progress and minimize

the impact of problems.

Suggestions for Future Projects

Although there were several challenges involved in keeping the project on track, the DPU was able to

finish the work according to regular Lab standards well within the deadlines for the grant project. Based

on the lessons learned from completing this project, here are some important considerations for other

groups undertaking projects of this kind:

Organize the project at the start: Make sure that several people are involved in the planning process – if

the original project manager is unavailable, there should be a secondary person in place to take up

coordination of the project in order to ensure that everything continues smoothly.

Evaluate materials carefully: Whenever there are materials to be microfilmed, ensure that the physical

objects have been thoroughly evaluated to consider all of the possible situations that may be

encountered in microfilming. These may include: loose items inserted in the books, folded pages,

partially-attached items on pages, and multiple items inserted or attached to the same pages.

Allow sufficient time: Whenever possible, make sure to include plenty of extra time in the workflow.

At any stage, a minor problem could cost significant amounts of time to solve. For example,

misunderstandings about requested microfilming standards for the project could require some

items to be re-filmed. Also remember that the workflow and timeline should take the physical

objects into account. Special transport or handling of physical items can require more time than

expected.

Communicate clearly with vendors: Having information available and verified in multiple places can

help to prevent misunderstandings. Include a hard copy of filming requirements and other relevant

documents with the physical objects when they are transferred to the vendor.


Centralize information: Whenever possible, keep copies of all relevant information in a place that is

easy for all project members to access, such as a project management site or internal wiki page.

Have a plan for microfilm evaluation: It is best to have the original object available when evaluating the

microfilm; however, if this is not possible, ask the vendor to note when the object is

color/grayscale/black-and-white so that you can determine if the microfilm meets the agreed-upon

standards.

Conduct multiple inventories: To make sure that no physical or digital items are lost, check them

against the original inventory at multiple stages. Creating an accurate initial inventory will prevent

problems later.

Log progress: Keeping track of all stages of a project with this many steps can be crucial. It is also

important to have a centralized place to track problems and progress in order to handle similar

issues in the future and to facilitate preparation of reports for granting agencies.

IX. Conclusion

Under the requirements of the grant the DPU successfully completed the digitization of the items

and associated metadata and is now hosting the ledgers in The Portal to Texas History’s collection “The

Civil War and its Aftermath: Diverse Perspectives”

(http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/CWADP/browse/). Traffic statistics about individual

items within the series “[Cooke county records, 1857-1950]” display user visits and referrals (see Figure

4).

http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/CWADP/browse/


Figure 4. Visits to and site referrals for an individual item in the Cooke County ledger series.

“The Civil War and its Aftermath” digital collection contains many other materials in addition to the

Cook County records. Figure 5 shows the usage statistics for the entire project, as of February 29, 2012.

The statistics indicate that in only a few months, the items within this collection have been accessed to a

surprising extent.


Figure 5. Usage statistics for the whole Civil War project collection.

The Cooke County ledgers were delicate materials in dire need of preservation. This project provided an

ideal opportunity to both preserve and to provide free worldwide access to a priceless trove of

information. If the statistics of visits to the entire collection serve as an indicator, this collection will

prove popular amongst researchers for years to come.


Appendix A – Original Inventory of Ledgers

Cooke County Ledgers Pulled for

Civil War Project

1. Criminal Docket, County Court, 1897-1899

16 X 11 ½ X 2 ¼; 484 pages; Vol. 148

2. Criminal Docket, District Court, 1897-1908

18 ½ X 13 5/8 X 2 7/8; 382 pages; Vol. 257

3. Criminal Docket, County Court, 1899-1902

16 3/8 X 11 X 2 ¼; 486 pages; Vol. 147

4. J. P. Civil and Criminal Docket, Precinct 3, 1885-1893

16 X 11 X 2 ½; 482 pages; Vol. 174

5. Judges Docket, Criminal, County Court, 1876-1881

18 X 2 3/8 X 12 7/8; 627 pages; Vol. 128

6. Minutes, Criminal, County Court, 1880-1885 (No. 2)

18 X 14 X 3; 607 pages; 607 pages; Vol. 142

7. Minutes, Criminal, County Court, 1886-1893

18 X 13 1/8 X 3 1/8; 634 pages; Vol. 141

8. Criminal Minutes, District Court, 1886-1893, vol. 1

17 7/8; 13 X 3; 640 pages; Vol. 256

9. Criminal Minutes, District Court, vol. 2, 1893-1899

18 X 13 X 3 1/8; 640 pages; Vol. 255

10. Minutes, Criminal, County Court, 1893-1916

17 7/8; 12 ½; 3 ¼; 636 pages; Vol. 140

11. Minutes, Criminal, County Court, vol. 3, 1899-1904

18 X 13 X 3; 638 pages; Vol. 254


12. Minutes – Pleas of guilty, County Court, 1892-1899

18 X 12 5/8 x 2; 396 pages; Vol. 139

13. Minutes – Pleas of Guilty, County Court, 1899-1904

18 X 13 X 2; 398 pages; Vol. 138

14. Sheriff’s Fugitive Record, nd, early 1900s

16 X 11 ¼ X 1 5/8;168 pages; Photographs and post cards, some are no longer

attached to the pages; Vol. 30

15. Record of Fugitives, District court, 1865-1908

14 X 9 ½ X 1 ¾; 35 pages; Vol. 246

16. Sheriff’s Fee Book, 1873-1874

7 ½ X 12 X 3/8; 13 pages; Vol. 99

17. Appearance Docket, Civil and Criminal, District Court, 1871-1873 (Bar Docket)

12 X 7 ½ x ½; 50 pages; Vol. 100

18. Bar Docket, Criminal, District Court, 1873-1883

12 X 7 ½ X 5/8; 201 pages; Vol. 101

19. J. P. Civil and Criminal Docket, No Precinct, 1858-1861

12 X 7 ½ X 5/8; 83 pages; Vol. 169

20. J. P. civil and Criminal Docket, No Precinct, 1866-1867

12 X 7 ½ X ½; 28 pages; Vol. 170

21. J. P. Inquest Record, Precinct 7, 1888-1919

14 X 8 ¾ X ¾; 41 pages; Vol. 172

22. Convict Labor Record, 1879-1891

16 X 10 5/8 X 1 3/8; 247 pages; Vol. 242

23. Bar Docket, Criminal, County Court, 1876-1885 (State Bar Docket)

18 X 12 ¾ X 2 3/8; 637 pages; Vol. 136

24. Bar Docket, Criminal, County Court, 1889-1893

18 X 13 X 3; 640 pages; Vol. 134



18 X 13 X 2 5/8; 636 pages; Vol. 135


18 X 12 X 3; 598 pages; Vol. 133

27. Criminal Docket [Judge’s State Docket], District Court, 1857-1871

16 X 11 X 2 1/2; 586 pages; Vol. 262


16 X 11 X 2; 444pages; Vol. 261

29. Criminal Docket, District Court, 1874 – 1877

16 X 11 5/8 X 2 ¼; 482 pages; Vol. 260


18 X 12 ¾ X 3 1/8; 586 pages; Vol. 259

31. Criminal Docket, J. P. Precinct 1, vol. 2, 1891-1895

16 X 11 5/8 X 3; 614 pages; Vol. 185


18 X 13 X 3; 600 pages; Vol. 258

33. Criminal Docket, J. P. Precinct 1; 1885 -1891

16 X 11 ¾ X 12 3/8; 462 pages; Vol. 186

34. Criminal Docket, J. P. Precinct 1, vol. 3, 1895-1904

18 X 12 ¾ X 3; 659 pages; Vol. 184

35. Pauper Record, vol. 1, 1895-1901

14 ¼ X 9 ½ X 1; 168 pages; Vol. 216

36. Jail Register, 1897-1910

16 X 11 5/8 X 1 1/2; 163 pages; Vol. 31

37. Execution Docket, County Court, vol. 1, 1877-1928

a. 18 X13 X 3; 641 pages; Vol. 149

Created by Perri Hamilton and Richard Himmel


Appendix B – List of Microfilming Specifications

Filming Specifications Delivered to Vendor

Description of Collection

37 bound ledgers (31 ledgers approximately 17 x 12 x 2 inches, 6 smaller fragile ledgers

approximately 12 x 7 x 0.5 inches) – see attached list for exact measurements, titles, and

volume numbers

Owned by the State of Texas

Finding aid is available

See additional document for exact size, title, and page count for each volume

Condition

Leather binding is deteriorating in places

Writing/text inside is good to slightly faded, small

Pages have printed text and handwriting in pen and pencil

Will lie fairly flat for filming

Filming Requirements

Include target with reduction ratio

Include target with page measurement (one per volume is okay)

Many have blank pages; film entire volume

Recommend largest image size possible: 1A orientation – (this was changed to 2B

orientation)

Summary of instructions given to vendor:

Film bound

Use Archives document for target

2B orientation

Film blank pages

Reduction ratio with page measurement

1 master & 1, 2N


Appendix C – Digital Projects Unit Scanning Standards

Standards for scanning microfilm:

TIF (uncompressed)

8-bit grayscale

Determine reduction ratio using loupe to look at ruler on film target, if available. Measure the

150 mm line using loupe, e.g. 150 mm = 11.8 mm. To find reduction ratio, divide larger number

by smaller 150/11.8 = 12.7 or 13x. This directly impacts image quality and OCR results.

Between 300-400 ppi (pixels per inch): Reduction ratio determines ppi, and the lower the

reduction ratio, the higher the scanned ppi.

Standards for scanning ledgers:

TIF (uncompressed)

100% scale (1:1)

400 ppi

8-bit grayscale (for pages that do not require preservation of color)

24-bit RGB color (for covers and pages containing color)

Notes about scanning standards:

Standards for loose documents match those for ledgers

Photographs are scanned at 600 ppi

All loose items are scanned front and back, even if the back is blank


Appendix D – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, In Progress


Appendix E – Spreadsheet to Track Scanning, Complete


Appendix F – Field Values Used in the Super-Template Metadata Record

Field Qualifier Value

Title Series Title [Cooke county records, 1857-1950]

Identifier OCLC Record Number 632429871

Call Number Mss Cooke County Records

UNT Catalog Number (Bib Record ID) B38375722

Institution UNT Libraries Archives

Collection The Civil War and its Aftermath…

Creator Organization/Compiler Cooke County (Tex.)

Subject Library of Congress Subject Heading Cooke County (Tex.)

County government -- Records and

correspondence.

UNT Libraries Browse Subjects Government and Law - County Records

Places - United States - Texas - Cooke County

Primary Source (Yes)

Description Content Ledger from Cooke County, Texas containing…

Physical # p. ; h cm.

Language English

Coverage Place United States - Texas - Cooke County

Resource Type Book

Format Text

Documents

Lessons Learned: Digitization of Cooke County Ledgers/67531... · Lessons Learned: Digitization of Cooke County Ledgers University of North Texas Libraries Contributors: Trista Barker