I believe I originally raised the issue. On virtually all of your points I
would agree with you. However, while being valid for the person working on a
single image, the ugly spectre of resource limitations rears its head when
one starts to look at it from the standpoint of thousands or even millions
of images, particularly from the aspect of storage -- it is unfortunate that
terrabyte storage arrays are still not cheap. Similarly, this also applies
from the management of resources across time. If an image of size x is twice
as large as an image of size y and as a result image size x takes an
additional 30 secs. to work with, this is not a major issue for a single
image. However, if one is working on 10,000 images, the additional 30s
translates to 83 hours.
The choice of resolution and format should be based on weighing on resource
posterity in conjunction with user demands and resource availability. It
makes as little sense to scan only to discard 90% of the information as it
does to scan low and have to rescan within a short period of time as
parameters and needs change. Having said that, I do subscribe to the more is
better philosophy; I have 480 megs of RAM on my primary graphics system at
home.
Tim
--------
Tim Au Yeung
Manager of Digitization Initiatives
Information Resources (Press)
University of Calgary
voice: 403.220.8975
email: ytau (at) ucalgary.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Roy Tennant's Lists <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: question on scanned images
>
>
> This question has led to an interesting and informative discussion, and
> I've enjoyed reading submissions from a number of knowledgeable people who
> do this kind of activity all the time. I just want to add one small point
> on a topic that is a pet peeve of mine (Hi Steve!). I believe someone
> earlier was bemoaning the impact on RAM and hard disk space of scanning at
> high (ca. 600dpi) resolutions. That should almost never be a
> consideration. To do this kind of activity at all means spending a few
> thousand dollars (at least) on equipment, so why skimp on RAM? RAM runs
> about $2-3/MB these days, so for $1,000 or so you can have a machine with
> half a gigabyte of RAM. Hard drive storage is ridiculously cheap. So if
> your scanning resolution requires more RAM and disk storage -- BUY MORE. I
> have 256MB RAM on my personal desktop machine, and barely scrape by with
> 82 MB RAM on my home machine (upgrade to happen soon). For the average
> situation, the single most effective PC dollar is the one spent on RAM. Do
> the math.
> Roy Tennant
> UC Berkeley Library
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|