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
"matt 2.vcf" (missing attachment)
--- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
