From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 15:30:32, Peter Johnson   
    wrote (my responses usually follow points   
   raised):   
   >On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 00:25:52 +0000, Charles Ellson   
   > wrote:   
   []   
   >>Many of those have been dealt with by being re-filmed (or scanned?) in   
   >>colour, IME usually the 1841 census.   
   >   
   >Only seen the 1911 census in colour, on Ancestry. Having the others   
   >rescanned would be a big improvement.   
      
   (I think FMP have it thus too - in fact I think they had it first: I   
   think it was they who actually scanned it.) I think the 1911 was done in   
   colour from the start, whereas the others - I think - mostly only appear   
   in colour where for whatever reason someone has decided they need   
   re-scanning - presumably the microfilm isn't legible, either judged so   
   at original scanning or someone's asked for it to be re-scanned. I think   
   it's nearly always been the 1841, though I can remember seeing (so I   
   have somewhere) one of the later ones that had rotted, so is very red   
   (the colour of the fungus or whatever), so must have been done in   
   colour.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   "Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea   
   that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing   
   things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)