[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Thanks so much for bringing to my attention the Shifting Gears essay. It was indeed provocative--it opened my mind to new ways of thinking. I'm listening to Sam Quigley's presentation as I write and I look forward to hearing the other presentations from the Digitization Matters conference. I appreciate OCLC making them available for those who didn't attend. Regards, Linda M. Wagner http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmwagner On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Waibel,Guenter wrote: 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
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
re born digital assets, we at the ROM have *lot* of digital images from fieldwork. The policy we have developed is that field images are selected by the field project director, and catalogued by them or their people - essentially if they catalogue it, we will archive it - and eventually make it available on the web. _ Dr. Robert B. J. Mason (E-mail: robm at rom.on.ca; fax (416) 586-5877) Dept of World Cultures, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C6, CANADA Associate Professor, Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, 4 Bancroft Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1C1, CANADA web: http://www.utoronto.ca/nmc/mason/mason.html 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
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
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
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
We scan at 3000 or 4000 dpi and burn the tiffs to DVD. NO need to ever rescan. Images are of publication quality with no to very little color correction. All color correction is also done within the scanning software NOT photoshop. Ideally scanning or photographing a RAW image is best save that as a TIFF convert or copy image to JPG and manipulate as needed. Becky Bristol Image Manager Ingalls Library Cleveland Museum of Art 11150 East Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44106 216.707.2544 -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 11:24 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi Perian, I would recommend scanning at 600 dpi if you can afford it. It's best to scan only once, and at the highest quality you can. That way, your images are 'use neutral,' meaning they can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes. I prefer master images of archival documents to be 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit color and 600 dpi, because these settings are more able to capture detail in deteriorating, faded, or soiled materials, not to mention messy handwriting! Keep the 600 dpi TIFFs as archival copies, and then make 300 dpi JPEG derivatives as needed. I hope this helps! Megan Potts Digital Asset Specialist Corning Museum of Glass pottsmh at cmog.org -Original Message- From: Perian Sully [mailto:psu...@magnes.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Perian, Regarding scanning dpi, check the de facto best practices published by National Archives. http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/digitizing-archival-materials.html It covers all the materials and provides an easy-to-use guidelines (page 52 -58). The scanning quality can be varied regarding materials and size. If your institution is capable, you might consider using JPEG2000, instead of TIFF. Yan Han Systems Librarian The University of Arizona Libraries -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Potts, Megan H. Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:34 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi Perian, I would recommend scanning at 600 dpi if you can afford it. It's best to scan only once, and at the highest quality you can. That way, your images are 'use neutral,' meaning they can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes. I prefer master images of archival documents to be 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit color and 600 dpi, because these settings are more able to capture detail in deteriorating, faded, or soiled materials, not to mention messy handwriting! Keep the 600 dpi TIFFs as archival copies, and then make 300 dpi JPEG derivatives as needed. I hope this helps! Megan Potts Digital Asset Specialist Corning Museum of Glass pottsmh at cmog.org -Original Message- From: Perian Sully [mailto:psu...@magnes.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
All, Resolution is only half the battle. Ensure that youre getting adequate pixels along the longer dimension of the image. 8000 without interpolation is a good starting point. Consider scanner quality as well. If youre looking to scan once make sure youre using a publication quality scanner such as an Imacon, Creo, or Kodak. I dont exactly agree with no color correction in Photoshop. Its best to keep your scanner calibrated and have it output the image to Adobe RGB 1998 as a working embedded profile. The scanner calibrations wont change very much, but it is something to watch. - JEFF Jeffrey Evans Digital Imaging Specialist Princeton University Art Museum 609.258.8579 On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Becky Bristol wrote: We scan at 3000 or 4000 dpi and burn the tiffs to DVD. NO need to ever rescan. Images are of publication quality with no to very little color correction. All color correction is also done within the scanning software NOT photoshop. Ideally scanning or photographing a RAW image is best save that as a TIFF convert or copy image to JPG and manipulate as needed. Becky Bristol Image Manager Ingalls Library Cleveland Museum of Art 11150 East Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44106 216.707.2544 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Ahh yes the magic number of DPI Here's a few other considerations to add to the mix. Resolution should also be tied to the details in the thing being scanned. For Microfilming documents, a quality scale was developed to ensure that items were captured at the proper level. The UIUC Library turned this method into a handy resolution calculator http://images.library.uiuc.edu/calculator/index.htm This was done some time ago and hasn't been updated to the current resolution best practices, so I'd be inclined to bump up the resolution a bit from what it reports as optimal. The important thing is that it doesn't focus on the size of the paper, but on the size of the smallest character or detail in what you are scanning. If your documents are pretty consistent, its easy enough to tell the scan operator what to use. But it also leaves room for upping the resolution when required - e.g. government publications that have 6pt font for footnotes, or maps and illustrations with fine details. We'd all like to follow the highest standards possible but sometimes reality means we can't do that. If corners must be cut, have a good, thoughtful and carefully considered reason for not following best practices. Instead of arbitrarily rounding down for everything, think about a triage system based on light sensitivity or fragility of the materials. Materials that are brittle or damaged should be scanned at higher resolution than materials that are in good condition and could take a re-scanning without further damage.Or you might identify certain collections as more important, or more frequently used to justify doing some materials at a higher resolution than other materials. Basing resolution on past requests is a sure way to paint yourself into a corner. Quality should be optimized for future use, not past use. Having a good estimate of what you're going to need can also help make the argument. TASI has a great storage calculator that can help with planning. http://tasi.ac.uk/resources/toolbox.html And lastly, resolution is only one metric for quality. Nothing wastes storage space faster than high resolution scans the use the wrong bit depth, have poor tonal quality or otherwise Richard rjurabn at uiuc.edu On Jan 8, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Perian Sully wrote: 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
I would definitely scan at a minimum of 600 dpi for printed matter. That's what the National Yiddish Book Center uses for the Yiddish books they scan. It is slightly coarse, but works well for the technology (and storage space) that were available at the time. Today, I would look at 1200 or 2400 dpi if plausible and settle for 600 dpi if not. There is probably nothing for which 300dpi is a reasonable resolution except for a throw-away that is being used for an immediate purpose (the scanner equivalent of storing materials on optical media--great for many purposes at hand, not relevant or appropriate to archives). TIFF is a fine archival format. Many institutions have started using it (and our institution is among the zillion who are looking at it) but there is no rush to change. ari On Jan 8, 2008 11:24 AM, Perian Sully psully at magnes.org wrote: 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 ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[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
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
We talked about this a while ago on MCN-L. Maybe a few times? Always a good topic. Or maybe I just can't let go. Anyway, I remember making a case for disk-based storage vs. CDs. I still can't believe that in any honest estimation, storage on CD/DVD/HD-DVD is cheaper than storage on really gigantic, redundant hard drives. And it's certainly not easier. DVD's take more space (some places devote whole rooms to them); they wear out and it's hard to know how often you have to check them and copy from an old DVD to a new one (and don't wait until it's too late!); you need to have people in charge of keeping and sharing them; you can lose them; you can sit on them and break them; the list goes on. Wouldn't you rather have them on disk, locked up in your secure data center, on the network, where it's easy to put them, duplicate them, derive other files from them, back them up as necessary and transfer them to new media in five years when 10-terabyte drives cost $100? --Matt -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Nik Honeysett Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:40 PM 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
