FADGI compliance for film digitization: what it means and why it matters

You’re writing an IMLS grant. You’re drafting an NHPRC application. Your institution’s preservation policy specifies FADGI compliance for any digitization project. You need a vendor that can deliver, document, and attest to compliance — and you need to evaluate which vendors actually can.

This is a practical guide to what FADGI requires, where the standard comes from, and how to read past the marketing claim that says “FADGI-compliant” without specifying a star level. Written for archivists, collection managers, and grant writers — assumes you already know SOMETHING about the field and need either clarity or validation rather than first principles.

What FADGI actually is

The Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative is a collaborative working group established in 2007 by US federal agencies engaged in cultural-heritage digitization. The founding members include the National Archives (NARA), Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institution, National Library of Medicine, and a rotating cast of additional agencies as projects warrant.

FADGI publishes the Technical Guidelines for Digitizing Cultural Heritage Materials — a continuously updated set of specifications covering still images, sound recordings, and moving image content. The guidelines are publicly available, freely consultable, and referenced by procurement officers, grant reviewers, preservation policy committees, and institutional buyers across the cultural-heritage sector.

It’s not a regulation. It’s a framework — a shared technical vocabulary that lets a Library of Congress preservation officer and a regional historical society’s collection manager talk about “preservation-grade digitization” and mean the same thing. That shared vocabulary is what makes FADGI matter operationally even when it isn’t legally required.

The current version of the moving-image guidelines lives at digitizationguidelines.gov. Spec details below reflect the framework’s structure as of the current published version — institutions writing grant applications should always cite the specific version they’re working from, since revisions ship periodically.

The star-rating framework

FADGI uses a 1-Star through 4-Star rating scale per deliverable. Each star level specifies resolution, bit depth, color accuracy, color space, dynamic range, noise levels, and file format requirements. For moving image content the rough mapping is:

The framework is deliverable-specific. A given digitization project may produce 4-Star master files plus 1-Star access copies — both legitimate, both labeled with their respective star levels. What you don’t do is claim a 4-Star deliverable when the file fails 4-Star at any of the spec dimensions.

For institutional film digitization, 4-Star is the working baseline. 3-Star deliverables work for some museum and library projects with narrower preservation mandates; 1- and 2-Star deliverables generally don’t meet institutional standards regardless of what they’re labeled.

What 4-Star actually requires

Concrete specifications for a FADGI 4-Star moving-image deliverable, as the framework structures them:

• Resolution: 4K or higher native scan resolution — not upscaled, not interpolated, not the output resolution of a lower-resolution capture
• Bit depth: 16-bit RAW capture preferred; 10-bit minimum for the master deliverable
• Color space: log color space at capture (Cineon log, ARRI Log C, or generic film log) preserving the full dynamic range of the source film
• File format: DPX sequence (preferred); ProRes 4444 XQ acceptable as master in some contexts
• Metadata: MODS, PBCore, Dublin Core, or institution-specific schema, populated at the asset level
• Chain of custody: documented at each handoff — intake, scanning, post-processing, QC, delivery
• Color accuracy: measured against calibrated reference targets with records retained
• Dynamic range: full range preserved from scan capture through final master

The framework also specifies access-copy generation requirements (downstream H.264 derivatives sized for streaming, sharing, and committee review) and storage/checksumming guidance (SHA-256 manifests, fixity verification across the archival lifecycle).

The official FADGI documents go deeper than this summary. For an institution writing a procurement spec or grant technical section, the practical move is to cite the published spec by version and quote the exact star-level requirements verbatim — not to paraphrase from a blog post.

Why FADGI matters for grants

The reason most institutional buyers care about FADGI compliance specifically is that the major federal preservation grant programs either require it or strongly prefer it:

• IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) — Museum Services Act and Library Services and Technology Act grants regularly cite FADGI as the evaluation standard
• NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) — Preservation and Access programs and Infrastructure and Capacity Building grants use FADGI as the technical baseline
• NHPRC (National Historical Publications and Records Commission) — preservation grant applications evaluate technical specifications against FADGI
• NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) — certain grant programs reference FADGI for moving-image work
• State humanities councils — vary by state, but most align with federal standards by reference

A grant application’s technical section that doesn’t reference a specific FADGI star level is generally weaker than one that does, regardless of how good the project is otherwise. FADGI gives reviewers a shorthand for evaluating whether the proposed digitization will produce preservation-grade outputs.

For deeper guidance on writing the technical section of a grant application, the grant technical section guide covers section-by-section language for IMLS, NEH, and NHPRC submissions. For program-specific deadlines and scoring criteria, IMLS and NEH grants for film digitization walks the major programs annually.

What “FADGI-compliant” actually means when a vendor claims it

This is the section that matters most for institutional purchasing. Compliance is a spec level, not a marketing claim — and the gap between vendors who can deliver true 4-Star and vendors who claim they can is wider than the procurement language usually reveals.

Red flags when evaluating a vendor:

• Claims “FADGI-compliant” without specifying a star level. Compliance to what level?
• Claims 4-Star without delivering DPX or 16-bit capture. The bit-depth requirement is non-negotiable.
• Can’t produce calibration records or measurement data on request. A real 4-Star pipeline tracks color accuracy against reference targets and retains the records.
• Won’t sign a vendor attestation letter for grant applications. Institutions writing a final report need a signed attestation that the deliverables met the contracted spec.
• Equates “4K” with 4-Star compliance. A 4K capture from a projector-based transfer doesn’t meet 4-Star; the capture method and bit depth matter, not just the output resolution.

What a credible 4-Star delivery actually includes:

1. The scan itself at 4K or higher native resolution, 16-bit log color space
2. Master deliverable as DPX 16-bit sequence or ProRes 4444 XQ (project-dependent)
3. Access copies at H.264 1080p sized for streaming and committee review
4. Metadata package in the requested schema (MODS, PBCore, Dublin Core, or institutional schema)
5. Chain of custody documentation from intake through delivery
6. Calibration records showing the scanning pipeline was measured against color targets
7. SHA-256 checksum manifest for fixity verification
8. Vendor attestation letter on institutional letterhead, signed by the vendor, specifying the FADGI spec level met

A vendor who can deliver all eight of those things on request is genuinely 4-Star capable. A vendor who can deliver three or four of them is delivering toward 4-Star, which is fine for projects that don’t require formal compliance — but isn’t the same thing.

How FPL handles FADGI projects

Specifics of the institutional workflow at FPL, in the spirit of full disclosure rather than upsell:

• All Archival-tier scans are delivered at 4K minimum native resolution, 16-bit log capture
• DPX sequences and ProRes 4444 XQ are bundled at Archival — not separate add-on charges
• FADGI documentation (calibration records, chain of custody, attestation on request) is included at Archival, not metered separately
• Metadata schemas supported: MODS, PBCore, Dublin Core, or your institution’s custom schema. Send the schema definition; we populate against it.
• Chain of custody is documented at four handoff points: intake, scanning, QC, delivery. Each point gets a timestamp, an operator initial, and a description of work performed.
• Vendor attestation letters are available on institutional letterhead with specific star-level claims and supporting documentation, signed by the lab.
• Pilot-scan program: 50–100 ft of at-risk footage scanned at the target tier with full assessment, no fee, no commitment. Institutions can verify compliance before committing budget.

Fee structure for institutional projects above 1,000 ft typically includes a custom quote with volume considerations — FADGI documentation isn’t a separate line item.

For institutional buyers specifically, the institutional digitization service page covers RFP support, grant-application contributions, and the full institutional workflow. The output formats reference covers per-tier deliverable specifications including FADGI alignment.

Sample grant-application language

Practical: example language an archivist or grant writer can adapt for the technical section of a grant application. Adapt — don’t copy verbatim. Reviewers see boilerplate.

Digitization will be performed at FADGI 4-Star specifications for moving image content. Native scan resolution will be 4K or higher with 16-bit log color-space capture. Master files will be delivered as 10-bit (or higher) DPX sequences in log color space, accompanied by ProRes 4444 XQ editorial intermediates and H.264 1080p access copies. Metadata will be structured per [MODS / PBCore / Dublin Core / institutional schema]. Chain of custody will be maintained from intake through delivery with documented handoffs at intake, scanning, post-processing, QC, and delivery. The vendor will provide a signed attestation of FADGI 4-Star compliance upon project completion.

That paragraph specifies the spec, the deliverables, the metadata layer, the workflow, and the accountability mechanism. A grant reviewer reading it knows exactly what they’re evaluating.

For deeper sample language and program-specific framing, the grant technical section guide is the longer reference.

Beyond FADGI — when you need more

FADGI 4-Star is a strong baseline for institutional film digitization. It’s not the ceiling. Three project types warrant looking past general-purpose FADGI-compliant vendors entirely:

Nitrate film. Pre-1952 35mm cellulose nitrate film is chemically unstable, flammable, and legally restricted to handle in many jurisdictions. Don’t ship nitrate to a non-nitrate-qualified vendor. The Library of Congress Packard Campus, George Eastman Museum, UCLA Film & Television Archive, Colorlab, and Cinelab are appropriate partners. FPL doesn’t handle nitrate — we refer.

Severely deteriorated film requiring wet-gate scanning, manual splice-by-splice repair, or specialist solvent rehydration. The marginal cost of these techniques on a general-purpose pipeline is high; specialists like TMTV in Nelson, BC have decades of experience and are usually the right call for stage-4 or stage-5 vinegar syndrome, advanced shrinkage, or fused reels.

Frame-level color restoration. Dedicated restoration houses (Roundabout Entertainment, Cineric, Colorlab’s restoration wing, FotoKem) outperform any general-purpose scanning vendor for projects involving frame-by-frame color recovery, manual dust and scratch repair on a per-frame basis, or full grade rebuilding from faded stocks. FPL provides scene-by-scene color correction at Preservation tier and full color-managed pipelines at Archival; we don’t do frame-level manual restoration.

For all three cases, an honest referral from your scanning vendor is more valuable than an inflated capability claim. Ask the question directly: “Is this project the right fit for your pipeline, or would a specialist be a better match?” The answer tells you a lot about whom you’re working with.

FADGI is the floor, not the ceiling

For institutional buyers writing specs, evaluating vendors, or building grant applications: FADGI 4-Star is the working baseline for grant-funded and federal digitization work. Meeting it requires specific capabilities — not every vendor can, and not every vendor who claims they can actually does.

The diagnostic test for vendor capability is straightforward:

• Can they specify the spec in writing?
• Can they produce calibration records on request?
• Will they sign a vendor attestation for grant applications?

A vendor who hesitates on any of those probably can’t deliver true compliance, regardless of marketing language. A vendor who can produce all three usually can.

For most institutional film projects, a FADGI 4-Star-capable vendor at a reasonable rate is the right match. For nitrate, severe deterioration, or frame-level restoration, an honest referral to a specialist is the right answer.

If you’d like to discuss scope, request a pilot scan, or get a vendor attestation drafted before submitting a grant application, write to hello@filmpreservationlab.com with a brief description of the collection and the grant program. Replies within one business day.