HighDots.NET Computer Hardware Forums  

Archive resolution

Scanners And Imaging Devices Scanners Discussions (comp.periphs.scanners)


Discuss Archive resolution in the Scanners And Imaging Devices forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old   
Scott W
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Archive resolution - 11-29-2006 , 11:43 PM






Ken Weitzel wrote:
Quote:
jeremy wrote:
"Eddie" <woofdog (AT) kennel (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:456e2cad$0$24708$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
Ken, I believe that Zip compression works best on text data, not a great
deal on Pics, which is why jpg developed their compression format. Though
I suspect that your point is that zip decompresses to original file.

But I still prefer non-compressed file. Tiff will have to do.



JPEG 2000 may be the next star image format. It has lossless compression
and is alleged to result in smaller file size than TIF.

Hi..

I doubt it, it's been around for quite a while, and hasn't made
any progress toward popularity at all.

Just for the heck of it, I zipped a few tiff's - started at 40 megs,
zipped to an average of about 27 megs.

But I agree that the way to go is uncompressed, make it as easy and
safe as possible for future generations who may want to see them.
I would say that you want to archive both tiff and jpeg. Whereas tiff
might be a file you are comfortable with and understand many people
will not even recognize it as an image file. Film scanned at high
resolution and saved as 16 bit/color tiffs take up a lot of room, more
then your relatives might want to deal with. There are programs that
will convert all your tiffs to jpeg format and resize at the same time
if desired. The point is future generations might be more willing to
deal with your photos is the collection can fit on to a fairly small
part of their hard drive, but not so interested if the collection takes
up boxes of DVD.

This is not to say you delete or destroy the full resolution version,
but that you have the collection in a smaller format for ease of use.

Scott



Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old   
Chris Palmer
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Archive resolution - 12-07-2006 , 08:25 AM







Scott W wrote:
Quote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
jeremy wrote:
"Eddie" <woofdog (AT) kennel (DOT) com.au> wrote in message
news:456e2cad$0$24708$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
Ken, I believe that Zip compression works best on text data, not a great
deal on Pics, which is why jpg developed their compression format. Though
I suspect that your point is that zip decompresses to original file.

But I still prefer non-compressed file. Tiff will have to do.



JPEG 2000 may be the next star image format. It has lossless compression
and is alleged to result in smaller file size than TIF.

Hi..

I doubt it, it's been around for quite a while, and hasn't made
any progress toward popularity at all.

Just for the heck of it, I zipped a few tiff's - started at 40 megs,
zipped to an average of about 27 megs.

But I agree that the way to go is uncompressed, make it as easy and
safe as possible for future generations who may want to see them.
I would say that you want to archive both tiff and jpeg. Whereas tiff
might be a file you are comfortable with and understand many people
will not even recognize it as an image file. Film scanned at high
resolution and saved as 16 bit/color tiffs take up a lot of room, more
then your relatives might want to deal with. There are programs that
will convert all your tiffs to jpeg format and resize at the same time
if desired. The point is future generations might be more willing to
deal with your photos is the collection can fit on to a fairly small
part of their hard drive, but not so interested if the collection takes
up boxes of DVD.

This is not to say you delete or destroy the full resolution version,
but that you have the collection in a smaller format for ease of use.

Scott
I wouldn't want to put a downer on this worthwhile and admirable
exercise [which I'm doing too] but here are a few points to consider:

1 Archiving on optical media is unproven. Be prepared to copy the data
onto fresh media after a few years. Think back only ten years - floppy
discs were contenders for "archival" media! Nowadays many new computers
don't have floppy drives... and I found to my horror that some essays I
wrote and saved on floppies only about seven years ago are now
unreadable. I think that optical media are more hardwearing than
floppies, but there are concerns about the stability of the dyes used
in CDs and DVDs. You can help by keeping them in a dark place, but test
them regularly and be prepared to migrate the files.

2 Keep your eye on developments! Be prapared to copy and convert your
images often. Hopefully, it will be a quick and easy process
[especially if you avoid zip files, though using internal zip
compression in TIFFs ought to be feasible], and future storage media
will have the capacity to store many DVDs! You'll eventually get the
lot onto a chip of some sort, I imagine. None of us are going to be
around forever, so leave clear instructions to this effect for whoever
you want to care for your collection in the future.

3 In around fifteen years, we have moved from the kilobyte era to the
terabyte era. File size will not be an issue in the future. I'm sure
that screens will resolve high definition images at 300dpi one day!

I think that scanning photos and putting the discs in a box to be
forgotten about for 50 years is unrealistic if you really want them to
survive. Repeat the mantra: Care and Maintenance!

Good luck & best wishes.



Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.