From: onlyme101@btinternet.com   
      
   J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
   > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 12:01:53, Graeme Wall   
   >  wrote (my responses usually FOLLOW):   
   > > On 26/04/2022 10:38, Geoff wrote:   
   > > > Do each of the large organizations (Ancestry, FMP,  FamilySearch   
   > > > etc) do their own scanning or are they all drawn from a common   
   > > > source?  I'm talking about the actual physical scanning, not the   
   > > > transcriptions.  Might a piece of a record that is damaged or   
   > > > missing, possibly be better from another source?   
   > >   
   > > AIUI the scanning process was supervised by the NRO and the copies   
   > > licenced to the various companies.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > As there is only one original of each record, if it is damaged  on   
   > > one, it won't be any better elsewhere.   
   > >   
   > I don't know for parish records, but for censuses, FMP certainly seem   
   > to have different scans - they look like more greyscale, though I   
   > think it means Ancestry used more the microfilm copies (and thus only   
   > two-level). At least, that was the case originally; I don't know if   
   > Ancestry have rescanned from different sources. Certainly, I've   
   > sometimes noticed when I've gone back - certainly on Ancestry, not   
   > sure about FMP - to a census I'd already looked at some years   
   > earlier, I've found it's higher resolution than last time, so they do   
   > redo, but I think still just two-level.   
   >   
   > I do remember the first time I came across a colour scan of an 1841   
   > page - glorious; I presume it was one where the Microfilm was either   
   > too bad or non-existent. I think that was on Ancestry.   
   >   
   > You (Graeme) say the scanning process was supervised by the NRO; in   
   > the case of parish records, I thought it was still going on, as both   
   > seem to announce from time to time (the LostCousins newsletter is a   
   > good place to find such announcements) new areas they have added [he   
   > often includes links direct to the new individual collections, too].   
   > (I get the feeling FMP more so, or maybe they just announce more   
   > often.) Or is it that they've all been scanned, and the announcements   
   > are only made when they've been indexed?   
   >   
   > Then there's the Mormons^WLDS^Wfamilysearch. Who have many scans of   
   > their own - particularly the ones (for my ancestry) Durham Diocese   
   > (which covers most of Northumberland, as well as lots of Durham,   
   > Yorkshire, and Cumberland). A lot of theirs (including the above) are   
   > not transcribed and thus not searchable by name, though they are   
   > divided by parish, and within those often by year chunks and/or   
   > record type, so you don't have to wade through that many images.   
      
   That is interesting.   It is between Ancestry & FamilySearch that I was   
   interested. A record I am looking for I believe, is probably on a page   
   of which half has been torn out looking at the Ancestry record, and I   
   was hoping it might have been added somewhere in the FS scanning.   
   I don't mind ploughing through the images on FS if I think there is a   
   chance.   
      
   Geoff.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)