On Tuesday I sent a message (below) to the list hoping to generate
discussion. Much to my chagrin it has not been forthcoming. I thank
Dennis Kois for his timely and insightful reply, but I am resubmitting
my post to emphasize my urgency and concern about this matter.

Dennis, FYI and as food for thought (FFT), I crunched some numbers.
Using your 23 meg TIFF file example for inspiration I did a few
experiments. Here are the results:

Using a 200 mhz PC with 98K RAM running Windows 95.

I used a 24 meg TIFF 600 dpi image file.
It compressed to a 5 meg JPEG.

The TIFF took 45 seconds to load.
The JPEG took 12 seconds to load.

A 660 meg CD-R will hold 27 files @ 24 meg
A 660 meg CD-R will hold 132 files @ 5 meg
Bulk price for a CD-R is ~ $.50

A database with 50,000 records each requiring an image -
would require 1852 CD's if TIFF format is adopted;
would require 379 CD's if JPEG format is adopted.
A savings of $736.50 on CD's.

For the sake of argument, time is money for staff, scholars or anyone
else accessing the master images. @ $5.65/hr it would cost a person
$3,531.25 to access the TIFF files vs. $941.67 to access the JPEG's, a
difference of $2,589.58.

This translates to a TIFF project exceeding a JPEG project by almost
400% in costs, regardless of project size. I do not know enough about
high resolution printers to offer comment on that subject. But your
comment begs the question, should I be producing images at 1200 DPI or
greater? My research indicates that scanning printed material beyond the
DPI of the original is a waste, but how does that relate to imaging of
non-printed mediums. (When I begin the imaging process I expect to do it
at 1200 dpi minimum, scanning printed material is a different story).

Using the AMNH examples and conclusions, with respect to enlargements,
the use lossy compression was negligible.

I am not seeking a grant to do this project. But if I do not follow the
de facto museum 'standard' of using TIFF's am I jeopardizing future
grants or accreditation.

--------- Original Message ----------------

Dear List:

I have thoroughly researched digitization projects and standards and am
left with one nagging concern that I hope is fuel for fresh and
enlightening dialogue. What is the best master file format? TIFF or
JPEG.

Taking into account the studies done by the Smithsonian's' American
Museum of Natural History
(http://www.nmnh.si.edu/cris/techrpts/imagopts/) where it is proven that
JPEG compression is an acceptable technique, why are major digitization
projects (i.e. Colorado Digitization Project
http://coloradodigital.coalliance.org/)adopting the TIFF format?

Will adopting one or the other format affect the decisions of funding
organizations?

Should smaller institutions who have limited human and physical
resources bother with digitization projects if they cannot comply with
the 'standards' adopted by the 'status quo'?

Although I understand the technology of lossless vs. lossy compression -
concerns about metadata, cross-platform and software accessibility,
quality control and workflow; and concepts concerning efficiency,
storage mediums and economic and human resources; and concerns
surrounding ownership, image control and intellectual property rights -
others on the list may not. There are ample resources on the internet
with which one can educate them self (a good place to begin might be
http://images.library.uiuc.edu/resources/links.htm).

Considering the resources cited above, is there any question that JPEG
compression is more efficient and economically sound than TIFF?  Or that
high quality master JPEG images are indiscernible from their TIFF
equivalent (both onscreen and printout)? Is not the savings in dollars
between the two separate formats in terms of creation, storage and
access significant regardless of the size of the institution or the
collection? Does the indiscernible loss of data in the original
compression of a high quality JPEG out weigh its economic benefits? It
seems to me that derivatives of a high quality JPEG master can be
reconverted to a lossless format or allowed to degenerate depending on
use. Is this not a unique form of security and control for the museum?

The collective wisdom of those who may shed new light upon my
understanding is presently sought so that the counsel I give, to those
who make a decision on this matter at my institution, is sound and
evenly weighed.

TIA for any feed back.


Terry Vidal
Collections Manager
University Museum
University Of Northern Iowa

[log in to unmask]
http://www.uni.edu/museum

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).