In terms of original digital capture, not surrogate conversion, I think we
must look at it as we did (do) film; different formats ( slides,
transparencies etc) for different purposes. What you need to define is:
The access you want to achieve.
The level of detail that your originals warrant.
By access I mean the purpose with which people will be viewing your digital
surrogate. Are people studying the fiber or the tapestry. Some research
institutions are now uncovering fascinating information through digital
study of manuscripts and paintings, but most are just showing the content.
The same with detail. Do you learn more studying your originals, with a
magnifying glass? Would what you learn be better captured with one detail
shot for 30 objects?
As I look at what I have written I see that I am now moving toward the
California Digital Library's approach for resolution standards which is 600
ppi rather than Western Region's 3000 pixels on the long dimension
which I support for surrogate conversion. I would, however, advocate that
the PPI approach be set according to needs as described above. A newspaper
and a tapestry potentially contain different quantities of information to be
viewed.
--
Trudy Levy
Consultant for Digital Imaging Projects
Image Integration 415 750 1274http://www.DIG-Mar.com
Membership Chair, Visual Resources Association http://vraweb.org
Images are information - Manage them
On 10/13/04 8:38 AM, Roger Howard rhow...@getty.edu wrote:
And as non PC as it is, I don't believe in archival digital images anyway.
Just because we can capture huge images, should we? Digitize for Access, yes
and mass distribution, but not for preservation, except as it reduces
handling of the original. The right resolution for proper access depends
on the material being scanned.
Trudy,
Where does this leave us with direct digital capture? Our digital files *are*
our masters; and as the resolution of cameras is flexible (huge range of
options) we still must face this question. If the digital asset cannot be the
archival asset, then it must be captured at a resolution that may be greater
than anticipated need, in order to write a usable piece of film, for instance,
that will be of value in the archives (rescannable, if absolutely necessary!).
That said, I think your advice about scanning resolution more or less applies
to digital captures as well, though perhaps with a bit more emphasis on
minimizing additional future access to the object by trying to meet even more
of the anticipated usage (though, admittedly, in our experience the extraction
of details is often not a justifiable cause to go overboard with resolution,
as very often the detail, unless it's of flat art, needs to be re-shot
anyway).
Best,
Roger Howard
The Getty
---
You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: tr...@dig-mar.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
---
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
