Another curmudgeonly warning, if I may. All of the digital
image field - except perhaps scientific image _analysis_ - is
driven by two megaforces, viz., "workflow," i.e., office
paperwork, and the craze to put images on the 'Net, i.e., WWW.
Neither calls for much in the way of image _quality_. I urge
anyone else to read Charles S. Rhynes' recent article "Computer
Images for Research, Teaching, and Publication in Art History
and Related Disciplines," _Visual Resources: An International
Journal of Documentation_ XI (no. 3) 1995, or the abbreviated
verson just issued by the Commission on Preservation and Access.
I would also urge reading C. Lee Jones' "Inventing the Future
of Preservation Microfilming" in Higginbotham, ed., _Advances
in Preservation and Access_ vol. 2, 1995, 101-117. Granted
Jones is partisan; but the quality comparisons at 105-106
between is enlightening. Did you know that a really minimum
resolution of 120 lpm on photographic film would be equivalant
to a scanned image of 3,048 dpm? And the tonal value scale
capability is only about half. Hence it becomes absolutely
critical that one have a very clear idea of what one is
digitizing for. If it is for the WWW bandwagon, or for images
to link to database files for a collection management program,
that is one thing. For most other purposes, NG. (Ironically,
most museum imaging, unless directly digital, as with the
digital cameras or frame grabs, will be from initial
photographs anyway.)
Sorry to be so long.

According to Andrew James Llwellyn Cary:
>
> Dominique Rogers wrote:
> >
> > I work as a volunteer in a museum which is planning to store
> > images of the collection on CD ROM. I am not a computer specialist and
> > nobody is in the museum.  I have been looking at equipment and figured
> > out that we need on top of what we have already, a) a scanner with
> > transparencies attachment and that the HP seems to be what we need, and
> > a CD ROM read write machine, and there is the problem: The HP is around
> > 1000 and the Yamaha is around 2000 and I cannot figure out the
> > difference and do not want to ask to dealers as I would like impartial
> > opinions. Can anybody give me some advice or share their experience on
> > this process, or tell me if it has been discussed before (I am sure it
> > has!) how I can access the information.  Thank you in advance.
> > Dominique Rogers
> > [log in to unmask]
>
[snip]>
> Now the obilgatory curmudgeonly warning. Storing images of documents on
> an electronic media is not a substitute for good old low-acid paper and
> permanent ink. It is a great distribution media, but not a great
> archival tool. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're in my business)
> electronic storage media are evolving at such a rate that 10 year old
> media is often quite difficult to use today (have you seen a functional
> 8" floppy disk drive lately?- how about an in service IBM card punch?).
>
> Electronic archival is not a media. It is a process of continually
> moving information from one format to another over time. Today CD-ROM
> is one of the most stable media. The data format on it may not be.
>
> Just something to think on from the old curmudgeon.
>
> --
> Andrew J. L. Cary                     | I Reckon that the Opinions
> Senior Curmudgeon                     | expressed here DO represent
> Cary Consulting Services, Newark, CA  | those of the management of
> [log in to unmask]                 | Cary Consulting Services
>