Collaborative Cataloging Japan

2016 Collection Survey
Takahiko Iimura StudioTokyo -November 23-25, 2016

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

1

Collaborative Cataloging Japan1

2016 Collection Survey

1Section 1: The Collection Survey Overview

3

Introduction

3

Methodology

3

Section 2: Collection Analysis

7

Overall Condition

7

Formats

7

Format Detail

9

Section 3: Mastering Format of Titles in Collection

13

Representation of Titles in Collection

13

Section 4: Risks

Obsolescence, Deterioration, and Other Issues

21

21

Information on the Generation: Which One is the Superior Master?21
Section 5: Recommendations

23

Environment, Care & Handling, File Storage

23

Checking Against Currently Available Digital Files

23

File Storage

24

Intellectual Control & Metadata24

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

2

Section 1: The Collection Survey Overview

Section 1: The Collection Survey Overview
Introduction
A collection survey of the work of Takahiko Iimura was conducted November 23–25,
2016, by Ann Adachi, Laurie Duke, and Mona Jimenez, with assistance from the artistand his assistants, Rie Iwashima and Mina Iwashima. The goal of the survey was tolocate and assess the highest quality version of the artist’s works.
A spreadsheet titled “CCJ Iimura Collection Survey” was created(“2016_CCJ_Collection_Survey _Iimura”) to collect metadata during the survey.
Information from several spreadsheets was compiled into the CCJ Iimura Collection
Survey from the following:- [2016_CCJ_Collection_Survey_Template_Iimura_original]This spreadsheet was created on November 23–25 by Ann Adachi-Tasch and
Rie Iwashima.
- [2016_CCJ_Collection_Survey_Template_Iimura_MJ]
This spreadsheet was created on November 23–25 by Mona Jimenez.
- [2016_CCJ_Collection_Survey_Template_Iimura_Jan11_170227_Iwashima]
This spreadsheet was created on February 19, 2017 by Rie Iwashima.
Particular attention was paid to film materials and obsolete video formats such as Umatic (3/4-inch tape), Hi8, and Betacam. However, a count of all audiovisual items was
accomplished, and some changes in arrangement were made to facilitate further work
to identify the highest quality versions of Iimura’s work. The survey was restricted tovideo and film; we did not survey any other media (such as optical disks or hard
drives).
Methodology
Discussions with the artist revealed his working methods and the organization andarrangement of his collection. Generally speaking, the materials were stored byformat. The U-matic tapes were stored roughly chronologically. We respected his
arrangement but re-ordered the tapes and in some cases re-shelved them as
described below to better understand the collection and to make it easier to locate andcompare various versions of artworks and related materials.
Iimura’s studio is made up of four rooms with the collections stored in three of them.
For the purposes of this report we are referring to the room closest to the entryway (onthe north side) as the “Studio 1” and the adjoining room on the south side of thebuilding the “Studio 2.” A third room that contains a number of old video machines wecall the “Studio 3.” Shelves containing collections were labeled 1–9. (Additional
information on shelving is provided in the paragraphs below, and the map of thestudio.)CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

3

Section 1: The Collection Survey Overview
Map of Studio and Shelves
Shelf 1–3 (Studio 1): Betacams
Shelf 5 (Studio 2): Films
Shelf 7 (Studio 3): Films (Iimura designated this spot for film masters)
Shelf 8 (Studio 3): U-matics, VHS, and others
Shelf 9 (Studio 3): VHS and others

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

4

Section 1: The Collection Survey Overview
Many of the tapes we assessed already had various labels affixed. According to
Iimura, extant tape labels that have meaning are as follows:- Red dots indicate “masters.” It appears that “master” could mean an edit master(final version of an edited work), a submaster, or in some cases a camera
original.
- P refers to performance- M refers to music- F refers to a film transfer
During the survey process, we often referred to [Iimura, Takahiko. takahiko iimura film
et video. Paris: Galerie national du Jeu de Paume, 1999]—which contains afilmography and videography, as well as a listing of installation and performance works—from 1962 through 1998. We did not have access to a list of titles for 1999 to thepresent. The most recent title we found (on Betacam) was from 2003. However, Iimura
continues to perform to the present date and it is possible he is accumulating files on
hard disk or on removable media (i.e., optical disc or flash drive) that document these
performances.
Iimura’s oldest works are on film and obsolete video formats: these works were given
priority for item-level description. For film, 180 films were examined visually and, withthe help of Iimura, details on content and generation were cataloged. Unique
identifiers were given to the films, with corresponding labels on the can and film coreor reel. Iimura has two main storage areas for film: Shelf 5 in Studio 2, and Shelf 7 inStudio 3. However, there are various cans of film in other areas of the studios. These
were determined to be of less importance to Iimura. Due to time restraints it was notpossible to find and group all of these films with the others; thus the film count may not
be complete. In general, the films on Shelves 5 and 7 are grouped by title, but not inchronological order.
A count was done for each videotape format (see below). 59 U-matic tapes were
cataloged. U-matic tapes are stored on Shelf 8 in Studio 3. Generally speaking,masters and submasters on U-matic are stored on the two top shelves. The majority ofthe tapes containing a single work (determined by inspection of existing item
notations) were given unique identifiers and entered into the CCJ Iimura Collection
Survey spreadsheet, and corresponding labels were put on both the tape cases andthe tapes. U-matic tapes marked “F” were arranged together. There are also 2
Betamax tapes; see below for exact location.
Betacam tapes that were stored in boxes in an outdoor storage room were brought
into the front studio room and arranged on Shelves 1–3. Masters and submasters
were arranged together by title of artwork, left to right chronologically, from the earliest
to the latest works (according to dates in the taka iimura film et video catalog).
Betacam film transfers were also arranged in this manner. Compilations, someSection 1: The Collection Survey Overview

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

5

performance works, and works by others were also categorized and are stored on A
shelves. It should be noted that some titles—with apparent multiple versions/copies—
are arranged in double rows in order to save space.
VHS/S-VHS tapes are stored in various locations. (Note that some VHS are stored on
Shelf 9, to the right as you enter the equipment room from the back studio room. VHS/S-VHS are also stored on Shelf 8 with the U-matics. Those labeled “P” and “M” havebeen grouped together, and single programs and compilations have been roughly
divided into separate areas on Shelf 9. Otherwise, the VHS/S-VHS tapes were not reordered. Some VHS/S-VHS were found in boxes with the Betacam and moved to Shelf
8 or 9. Tapes with a red dot and a few marked “master” were moved to Shelf 1.
Also, there were eight boxes found in a storage room containing VHS/S-VHS and a
few other formats. All tapes that were not VHS/S-VHS format were removed fromthese boxes and are represented in the counts below (primarily Betacams), and theseboxes have been re-labeled Box 03–Box 10. These boxes had been previously labeledon the top with list of their contents: the existing notations may roughly correspond to a
portion of the contents. However, it was not possible to note which tapes were
removed. Thus, if a particular item on the box’s handwritten list can’t be found, it islikely on Shelves 1–3.
Video8 and Hi8 tapes were removed from shelves and arranged in Box 01 and Box 02(see details below). Mini-DV and DVCAM tapes were also moved to these boxes, anda small number thought to be masters were moved to Shelf 1. Audiocassettes, DAT
tapes, and VHS-C were placed in boxes. One D1 and one HDCAM that were found in
the collection were placed on Shelf 1.
Light dusting was done wherever possible as tapes were arranged. Empty cans/cases
and new tapes were separated and not counted. Boxes 01–10 were placed in thestorage area under the stairs on the north wall of the equipment room.

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

6

Section 2: Collection Analysis

Section 2: Collection Analysis
Overall Condition
Films were inspected for noticeable damages including mold and vinegar smell by
visual examination. These conditions were noted in the CCJ Iimura Collection Survey
spreadsheet. No playback was done. In some cases, the films were previously
wrapped with plastic and masking tape, which were taken off to let air in. For a numberof films, Iimura unwound the film himself to inspect them. The films that were
inventoried seemed to generally be in good condition with a few in very poor shape.
Tapes that were entered into the Iimura CCJ Iimura Collection Survey spreadsheet
were checked for contamination, and others were randomly examined. Only one wasfound to have mold. However, no other inspection was undertaken and thus otherproblems may be found as the collection is inventoried. Also, the tapes were not writeprotected. The tapes seem to be in overall good condition, but the tapes cases are
extremely dusty. Some tape labels on the older tapes are in danger of being detachedor have separated altogether. Playback was not possible so neither the ability of the›tape to transport reliably nor the signal integrity are currently known.
Formats
There are 1,368 items in the collection. 172 are film, 1,182 are video, and 14 areaudio.
Film Formats
FormatCount

Shelf Location

Notes

16mm

156

Shelves 5 & 7

Masters and duplicatesSuper85 + 1x Single8

Shelf 5

Duplicate prints

8mm

19

Shelf 5Many are camera originals

Total Films

172

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

7

Section 4: Risks

Section 4: Risks
Obsolescence, Deterioration, and Other Issues
Obsolescence in terms of moving image media means that it becomes more difficultand expensive to find working playback machines for the various formats that must bedigitized. Tools and supplies needed to sustain playback machines are becoming
scarce, limiting the window of time to transfer obsolete media currently to 15–20 years.
Magnetic tapes can face many preservation issues over time including sticky-shed
syndrome commonly seen on U-matic tapes, is the deterioration of the binders that
results in its inability to playback. Other problems can include mold and otherbiological problems, stretching, breaking, drop-outs, and warping sometimes causedby piling the tapes horizontally or storing unevenly. Small and thin formats such as
MiniDV are not durable.
Information on the Generation: Which One is the Superior Master?
With many generations of the same work existing in Iimura’s collection, it is necessary
to document the timeline of the transfers and gather information on the hierarchy of thevarious versions. Especially in risk are identifying the camera originals for performanceworks and locating the masters for the installation works.
See below for further details of the risks according by format, which are assessed tocontain masters and submasters in the collection.
U-matic: Introduced by Sony in 1971, the 3/4-inch U-matic video tape format was
widely adopted by industrial, professional, and educational users. Its use in portable
recording systems made video tape a relatively easy means of taping for broadcast
television, creating industrial trade video materials, and documenting and creating art.
Due to media and hardware obsolescence, this format should be considered at highpreservation risk. U-matic tape SP’s picture quality is superior to the standard U-matic;
the improvement in picture quality is lost if the SP tapes are played back in a standard
deck. Standard U-matic tapes cannot be played back on an SP deck at all.
VHS/S-VHS: VHS is a magnetic tape-based analog video cassette format. Older VHS
tapes are susceptible to signal loss due to age. Tapes are also susceptible to damage
from mold, binder deterioration, and other physical and biological issues. This format is
considered at low preservation risk as the media and equipment are still currently
available.
Betacam: Introduced by Sony in 1982, Betacam format supplanted the U-Matic
format. Older Betacam tapes are susceptible to signal loss due to age. Tapes are also
susceptible to damage from mold, binder deterioration, and other issues. Equipment
obsolescence is not yet a concern and Betacam cassettes tend to be durable, so most

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

21

Section 4: Risksof the format’s risk is determined by its age. This format would currently be considered
low risk.
MiniDV: MiniDV is a magnetic tape-based digital video (DV) cassette format. It wasused chiefly for consumer home video in the late 1990s and early 2000s. MiniDV is
subject to the same physical issues as analog tapes—stretching, breaking, drop-outs,
mold, binder deterioration, and unintended recording. The tapes are relatively fragile
and are not considered to be an archival format. Presently, market share seems tosuggest a lessened threat of obsolescence. However, as with any newer video format,
it is difficult to predict how long it will be supported. These cassettes should be given
reformatting priority based on their content value.
DVCAM: DVCam is a magnetic tape-based digital video cassette format. As with mostmagnetic media, DVCam is subject to the threat of obsolescence; its present market
share, however, suggests that this threat is relatively low. Although DVCam is not anarchival format, reformatting is not an immediate preservation priority unless there are
obvious signs of tape failure.
(Reference: https://psap.library.illinois.edu/collection-id-guide/videotape#umatic)

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

22

Section 5: Recommendations

Section 5: Recommendations
Environment, Care & Handling, File Storage
Tapes should be stored in an area with consistent temperature and relative humidity
values. The tapes should be shelved upright, with the spines facing outward, likebooks on a shelf. If the tapes cannot be stored on metal shelves, they should be kept
in lidded boxes that hold the tapes securely in place, standing vertically. They shouldbe transferred to acid-free, archival boxes that will not degrade or outgas. Tapes
should be stored in a fully rewound state in order to minimize exposure to dust andother contaminants, and to prevent damage to areas of the tape that contain
information during playback (since the beginning of the tape is usually blank).
Checking Against Currently Available Digital Files
Since Iimura has done extensive digitization of his works to create distribution, access,and online streaming copies, there must be a repository of digitized material. It ishighly possible that this process was done to create DVD copies, which digital files
have been used in recent years as digital exhibition copies. The quality of such digital
files does not often reflect the quality of original or master film or video, and files
should be checked to assess their resolutions.
While there are varying opinions regarding the acceptability of tape playback for either
the creation of immediate access files or to determine content, there is a risk that theinitial playback of an older tape may be its last. Also, if the equipment used forplayback has not been cleaned and serviced on a regular basis, there is the chancethat new damage to the tape may be sustained. Jointly commissioned by The Andrew
W. Mellon Foundation and the National Endowment for
the Arts, the Dance Heritage Coalition report observed:
Preservation Master—Method A. While there are varying recommendations as to thebest format for digital moving image preservation, major cultural repositories in the
United States currently espouse the JPEG 2000 format:
Library of Congress has done the most digital video reformatting while the
National Archives and Records Administration and the Smithsonian Institution
are starting to carry out projects of their own. All three agencies have purchased
SAMMA devices, a product of the Front Porch Digital company. The Library isusing SAMMA’s best-known implementation in a workflow that produces a
stream of video-frame images, each encoded in lossless JPEG 2000. This
picture data, together with soundtrack, timecode, closed captioning, and so on,
is wrapped in the Material eXchange Format (MXF) file format.1
The Barbara Goldsmith Preservation and Conservation Department at NYU’s Bobst
Library also has a SAMMA machine which is used to create JPEG 2000 preservation
1Carl Fleischhauer, “Format Considerations in Audio-Visual Preservation Reformatting: Snapshots from the Federal

Agencies Digitization Guidelines Initiative,” Information Standards Quarterly 22, no. 2 (Spring 2010): 39.

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

23

Section 5: Recommendations
masters. However, JPEG 2000 can be a problematic preservation format in that it
requires expensive, specialized equipment and techniques for creation and file
manipulation (files must be transcoded before they can be used), and increased
storage needs.
Preservation Master—Method B. Another recommended format option for preservation
masters is 8-bit or 10-bit uncompressed. Both Preservation Master methods A and B
strive to preserve as much information as possible during the transfer to digital files. In
a recent compression study by the Dance Heritage Coalition and the Bay Area Video
Coalition, participants did not see differences between 8-bit and 10-bit uncompressed
files. JPEG 2000 was not included in the study because “there is a lack ofstandardization among software and hardware implementations. Some of the
hardware encoded files may not be readable without the appropriate hardware
installed.” Typically, these uncompressed formats would use an .mov file wrapper,
which means they can be opened by video editing software.
For access purposes, the H.264 codec is appropriate.
File Storage
Estimates for digital file storage space requirements are as follows: 2
File TypeGigabytes (GBY) Per Hour

JPEG2000

30

10-Bit Uncompressed

95

8-Bit Uncompressed

85

DV50

25

DV

13

*Maintaining digital files requires time (for file migration) and data storage spacecommitments. It is best to develop a preservation plan for long-term file storage,
considering options such as RAID systems and digital linear tapes (LTO), before
undertaking preservation-quality digitization of the video tapes.
Intellectual Control & Metadata
Intellectual control and metadata are what enable an archive to manage materials overtime; in the absence of adequate and reliable intellectual control systems, users lackcritical information and collection managers are neither able to keep track of original
materials nor to maintain the connection between source materials and subsequent
2Sacerdote and Sorensen, “Codec Comparison,” The Electronic Media Review vol. 1 (2012): 66.

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

24

Section 5: Recommendations
versions. Intellectual control is a necessary step in maintaining authenticity andguaranteeing the integrity of the materials in the archive.
Records metadata should be transferred to a more flexible and robust system. The use of a
relational database would accommodate multiple variations of names, titles, and dates. Givenboth the existence of multiple elements pertaining to a single work and the multiple video fileinstantiations that will result from the creation of both digital preservation and access copies,
an audiovisual media-specific database template is recommended. The IMAP template is agood starting point. PBCore would also be useful for tracking works that will be divided into
pieces for the purpose of quick online access (such as has been done by the team for
YouTube). An open-source tool that incorporates content—video clips—into the database
itself is Open Video Digital Library Toolkit. Another open-source software, Collective Access,provides an asset management solution that is very flexible.

CCJ 2016 COLLECTION SURVEY

25