My concern here is that we are making "archival" TIF files at, say, 300
dpi, when significantly more information than that is available on the
original photographic print.  I expect that all these digital archival
files will need to be re-scanned someday soon, when hundred-gig files
aren't a big deal to create, transport, store and use.  I can wait, but are
the folks investing big sums of money creating these archival files today
really aware that their work is only temporary?  Are we encouraging
expensive scanning projects when, for now, perhaps only a simple jpeg is
necessary?

 
>>At the Huntington Archive where we do almost excliusively images ranter
>>that text documents, we have found the file size a particularly difficult
>>problesm which we are still discussing.  Archival storage of images, has
>>for us been at the maximum "usable" resolution, and not the maximum
>>possible resolution.  With scanners that go up to 14,000dpi and true 5,600
>>dpi, hundred Gb files are possible but who wants all that data from a
>>single sheet of paper or film?

>If you have a large object and want high quality reproduction - especially
>of details - you have to go beyond 300dpi sometimes - and certainly file
>sizes grow with object size...

Bill Barrow



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
WILLIAM C. BARROW
13537 Cedar Road 
University Heights, OH  44118
(216) 397-8327
[log in to unmask]
http://www.csuohio.edu/CUT/wcb2.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Special Collections Librarian
Cleveland State University Library
1860 East 22nd St., #201 
Cleveland, OH  44114-4435
(216) 687-6998 - office
(216) 687-9380 - fax
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE CLEVELAND DIGITAL LIBRARY
http://web.ulib.csuohio.edu/SpecColl/cdl/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%