Matt,
It is important is to archive the raw file because it has the potential to yield higher quality output than tif (higher dynamic range is just one example) when taking advantage of CS2 and other next generation image editing tools (e.g. Apple's Aperture) .
Zip is well established EXCEPT tif/zip with layers it is not fully supported quite yet by the mid-range media asset managers. You can set tif.zip for lossless compression.
Zip & Raw are clearly here to stay and hopefully there will be more support for a lingua franca like DNG from the camera mfrs.
We have not yet fully adopted embedding IPTC (and XMP) metadata although we are working on that along with custom panels.
Alan
----------
From: Matt Morgan
Reply To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines
<<File: matt.vcf>><<File: footer.txt>>
Newman, Alan wrote:
>Curious coincidence. I just distributed this link today to my staff and I was preparing a post to MCN-L. We've adopted most of these guidelines in my division at the National Gallery.
>
>
I'm curious to know which recommendations you haven't adopted ... let us
know!
I read through the UPDIG recommendations and found it really interesting
and helpful. I thought their recommendation for RAW format was
relatively unconvincing, though. Almost like they were saying "we want
to recommend RAW format, but we realize you're going to convert them
anyway, at least until the DNG format is widely-supported." Their best
arguments for RAW applied to oddball cameras--which to me is an argument
not to buy an oddball camera. Is anyone behaving differently, and
storing files in RAW (but not also storing in TIFF)? I think, although
I'm not sure, that the UPDIG Working Group has more faith in RAW than
the museum and library worlds do.
The other question I've been asking myself a lot lately, but haven't
seen addressed much, is why not store files with some form of reversible
compression like zip (or gzip or bzip2)? UPDIG doesn't address this
(although they allow that compression is valuable for delivery). ZIP
(and bzip2 and gzip) is perfectly reversible, and it's tried and true.
Why store 100Mb TIFF files when we could be storing 10Mb tiff.zip files?
Has anyone out there opted to use reversible compression in digital
repositories? If not, why not?
I realize that JPEG2000 would also solve the compression problem, but
ZIP ought to have less of an acceptance problem than JPEG2000 (as it's
already so established).
Thanks,
Matt
You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
