I'm not certain of the extent of the physical and digital collections at the Magnes Museum, but I image that regardless of the size, they are using some sort of CIS to keep track of it all. For smaller museums it is not always immediately cost effective to scan at the highest possible pixel count when your current intended use requires much lower. However, there is a looming management problem when one assumes they can always rescan again and again as the need arises. Every time a new scan is made, the management problem escalates. How much extra time and effort will it cost the data manager keep track of all these versions of the same physical asset? The additional storage space to house the 300 dpi version, the 600dpi, the 1200dpi version, each with their own unique set of technical and administrative metadata? If the 300 dpi image is posted online to satisfy the initial need to make it immediately accessible to the public, then it is the responsibility of the data/CIS manager to keep track of that version of the file. If the original object/document was then rescanned at a higher pixel count to accommodate a scientific request, that too must be maintained. Rescanned again for a publication request, and consequently another derivative - technically superior but no more or less important than the original scan.
Getting the 'image out there' to the public generates interest (we all hope) and leads to greater use. By placing it on the web, you are inevitably leading the way to additional uses beyond the original (access) and that will almost certainly require rescanning at higher pixels within a relatively short time period. While I'm not arguing that every slip of paper needs a 100mb image file, however, some forethought might alleviate the need to generate, maintain and manage more versions of an image than you would otherwise have to or want to deal with. It's not just the cost of storage or cents per scanned page that needs to be taken into account, the long term cost of management must be considered as well - both in terms of time and money. Just my 2-cents, -Rebecca Snyder, NMNH Informatics >>> "Louise Renaud" <Louise.Renaud at civilisations.ca> 1/8/2008 6:34 PM>>> When dealing with scanned images, I find quite inspiring the new approach taken by RLG Programs and OCLC about Quantity vs Quality & Access vs Preservation. However, working for an Institution where the photo collection is also comprised of an overwhelming quantity of photos taken during Museum events or field work record documentation, I would be interested to know how others are dealing with the triage of any huge incoming quantity of unique "born digital" assets. In such case, one could say that the statement Quantity vs Quality morphs into Quantity vs Preservation. Currently the Museum, through initial review, secures Copyright ownership - keeping only appropriate images. The Museum also deletes poor quality photos and assesses the importance of the deposit itself ensuring that it is in accordance with its mandate. These actions reduce the quantity per se but the number of individual photos can still be quite significant. Should other institutions be dealing with similar challenges and if some triage principles/rules could be shared, this would help us greatly. Thank you. Louise Renaud Manager, photos and copyright Library, Archives and Documentation Services (LADS) Canadian Museum of Civilization 100, rue Laurier Street, Gatineau, QC K1A 0M8 T?l: 819-776-8237 fax: 819-776-8491 -----Original Message----- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Nik Honeysett Sent: 8 janvier 2008 16:40 To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Bravo to Sam (the man with the longest title in Museum Technology) for questioning time honored advice. (Hmm... Time honored?). There are other areas where this thinking is being applied very productively, for example in software and website development. I know this topic has come up before, but I'm concerned by the "do it once, burn to DVD, never have to do it again" philosophy. Life expectancy for this media is not in the "never" range. If you are on a digitization initiative and buying large quantities of low quality media you should be wary of the life expectancy of your archive. You may _have_ to rescan or at least transfer to different media stock. In that regard a more appropriate resolution based on your institution's short- to mid- term needs (5-10 years?) may be appropriate. Storage is cheap, but this compounds the problem. Bigger, faster, cheaper means that you put more of your digital eggs in one media basket. If one out of 10 DVDs fail, you loose 100 tiffs, if one out 10 HD-DVDs fail, you loose 1,000 tiffs. -nik >>> "Waibel,Guenter" <waibelg at oclc.org> 1/8/2008 9:37 AM >>> Hi Perian, A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go for higher resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in certain circumstances (for example, original art, fragile materials or small high-value collections), but the situation you're describing is different ("the documents aren't "precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh the intended use of the material in making your decision. The advice you received was accurate if your main goal is preservation, but that's not what your post led me to believe. If your main goal is increased access to as many items in your collection as fast as possible, I think a different approach may be more suitable. For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam Quigley gave an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs organized in Chicago '07, during which he began to question the time-honored advice of "do it once for all time," and argued that a model of rapid digitization for access may be just as valid to make museum collections available as quickly as possible. It made me (and some of my colleagues) refine our positions when it comes to digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any more than I've already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to his talk at http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm. Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put together a provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some of the forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at - the end result is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth considering in this context as well. You'll find it at http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's a pertinent excerpt: "Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of preservation, leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you capture preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In reality, due to the very special nature of these often unique materials, we will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In light of recent programs for the mass digitization of books, if special collections and their funding continue to be marginalized, our administrations may not keep us around to attend to the originals. In the past, we've soothed our doubts by repeating the mantra, "we'll only get one chance to do it, so it's got to be done right." Experience has shown that that is not in fact the case. Often we do go back when the technology improves or when we better understand our users' needs. We need to put on our helmets now and go for the biggest bang for the buck in terms of access." Cheers, G?nter *** G?nter Waibel RLG Programs, OCLC voice: +1-650-287-2144 G?nter blogs at ... http://www.hangingtogether.org -----Original Message----- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:24 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi all: We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or 300 dpi. On the 300 side: 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG 3) storage space concerns 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 dpi treatment 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) On the 600 side: 1) scan once and be done with it 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests 3) storage is cheap 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we don't have RAW to fall back upon We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and photographs and 3D materials in 600. What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back upon here? Thanks in advance! Perian Sully Collection Information and New Media Coordinator Judah L. Magnes Museum 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 510-549-6950 x 335 http://www.magnes.org Contributor, http://www.musematic.org
