[MCN-L] Training courses: copyright, managing projects, colour management and fundraising/sustainability
** Apologies for cross posting ** There are new training events listed at King's Digital Consultancy Services. http://www.digitalconsultancy.net/content/training.htm What course attendees have said about our training: * "Excellent coverage of information with apt description and explanation." * "The balance between group discussion and presentation was particularly good." * "This is excellent ? one of the best I've attended." * "It was very comprehensive ? as I thought of questions, they were answered almost right away. I have a lot of new knowledge that I'll be able to apply." * "Provided just the information required ? informative, comprehensive and thought provoking." Courses are ?140 (no VAT) per person and are based in London at King's College London. Course include the following: 11th February Managing digital projects for culture and heritage 22nd February Digital copyright: Opportunities and practicalities 6th March Colour management 20th MayDigital preservation 12th June Digitising and delivering textual resources Register interest for the following (dates to be confirmed): Fundraising Sustaining digital projects: Funding the future Audiovisual preservation for culture, heritage and academic collections 22nd February 2008 Digital Copyright: opportunities and practicalities Presented in association with Naomi Korn, copyright consultant. Copyright is a current and important topic for many organisations, particularly those that are considering digitising and delivering digital content in order to make sure that their rights are not infringed upon and their assets are fully exploited. This all-day course will focus upon participant's experiences and case studies. It will encourage group work and discussion around key areas, whilst focusing on current topics and real world digital issues. This course will appeal to everyone currently digitising content or thinking of embarking on a digital project who wishes to learn more about rights issues. Participants are invited to bring case studies and outlines of current projects to the session. By the end of the day, participants will: * Encounter the key issues relating to digital copyright * Know the importance of managing and protecting their rights * Share experiences and good practice tips with other participants * Gain knowledge about how best practice can be embedded within their daily work Naomi Korn is an experienced trainer and consultant, specialising in copyright, IPR, licencing and digital rights management. She has worked for many years with museums, galleries, archives, libraries and the higher education sector. She was the first copyright officer at the Tate and has contributed to many international projects. She is currently the Secretary of the Museum Copyright Group. See Naomi's website for more information. Sessions include: * Copyright in a global environment: overview of the legal landscape and key issues * Digitisation and copyright: what can you digitise and when should you? * Digital Rights Exploitation: generating income from copyright * Delivering content on the web: practical tips for protecting your rights * Institutional Intellectual Property Audit * Digital Rights management: solutions and shortcuts * Case studies 11th February 2008 Managing digital projects for culture and heritage Focused upon delivering digital resources and digitisation (the conversion to digital formats) this one day course will inform managers and project staff about how to approach digital projects. Starting with effective project management through fundraising and budgeting/costing issues the course will offer real life examples and tools to enable effective management. The afternoon will focus upon writing requirement specifications, tendering and selecting service providers. The course will encourage discussion, questions and debate plus provide a structured environment to learn about the management tools of the digital project trade. Sessions: * Planning and project management Introducing the fundamentals of project management to enable effective planning and risk management * Fundraising and budgeting Transforming plans into costed proposals for raising funds. How to work with funding bodies to get what you both want. * Writing requirement specifications and requests for proposals (RFP) How to write a functional description of what is needed (whether service, system or software oriented) to enable external service providers to achieve the desired outcomes. * Tendering and selecting services How to tender for and select services. Whether to work in-house or outsource and how to use a decision matrix. 6th March 2008 Colour ? fidelity for digital imaging given in association with the National Gallery This course will be suitable for anyone wishing to learn more about colour man
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
We talked about this a while ago on MCN-L. Maybe a few times? Always a good
topic. Or maybe I just can't let go.
Anyway, I remember making a case for disk-based storage vs. CDs. I still can't
believe that in any honest estimation, storage on CD/DVD/HD-DVD is cheaper than
storage on really gigantic, redundant hard drives. And it's certainly not
easier.
DVD's take more space (some places devote whole rooms to them); they wear out
and it's hard to know how often you have to check them and copy from an old DVD
to a new one (and don't wait until it's too late!); you need to have people in
charge of keeping and sharing them; you can lose them; you can sit on them and
break them; the list goes on. Wouldn't you rather have them on disk, locked up
in your secure data center, on the network, where it's easy to put them,
duplicate them, derive other files from them, back them up as necessary and
transfer them to new media in five years when 10-terabyte drives cost $100?
--Matt
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Nik
Honeysett
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:40 PM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Bravo to Sam (the man with the longest title in Museum Technology) for
questioning time honored advice. (Hmm... Time honored?). There are other areas
where this thinking is being applied very productively, for example in software
and website development.
I know this topic has come up before, but I'm concerned by the "do it once,
burn to DVD, never have to do it again" philosophy. Life expectancy for this
media is not in the "never" range. If you are on a digitization initiative and
buying large quantities of low quality media you should be wary of the life
expectancy of your archive. You may _have_ to rescan or at least transfer to
different media stock. In that regard a more appropriate resolution based on
your institution's short- to mid- term needs (5-10 years?) may be appropriate.
Storage is cheap, but this compounds the problem. Bigger, faster, cheaper means
that you put more of your digital eggs in one media basket. If one out of 10
DVDs fail, you loose 100 tiffs, if one out 10 HD-DVDs fail, you loose 1,000
tiffs.
-nik
>>> "Waibel,Guenter" 1/8/2008 9:37 AM >>>
Hi Perian,
A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go for higher
resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in certain circumstances
(for example, original art, fragile materials or small high-value collections),
but the situation you're describing is different ("the documents aren't
"precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh the intended use of the material in
making your decision. The advice you received was accurate if your main goal is
preservation, but that's not what your post led me to believe. If your main
goal is increased access to as many items in your collection as fast as
possible, I think a different approach may be more suitable.
For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam Quigley gave
an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs organized in Chicago
'07, during which he began to question the time-honored advice of "do it once
for all time," and argued that a model of rapid digitization for access may be
just as valid to make museum collections available as quickly as possible. It
made me (and some of my colleagues) refine our positions when it comes to
digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any more than I've
already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to his talk at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm.
Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put together a
provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some of the
forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at - the end result
is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth considering in this
context as well. You'll find it at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's a
pertinent excerpt:
"Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of preservation,
leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you capture
preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In reality, due to
the very special nature of these often unique materials, we will always
preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In light of recent programs
for the mass digitization of books, if special collections and their funding
continue to be marginalized, our administrations may not keep us around to
attend to the originals.
In the past, we've soothed our doubts by repeating the mantra, "we'll only get
one chance to do it, so it's got to be done right." Experience has shown that
that is not in fact the case. Often we do go back when the technology improves
or when we better understand our users'
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
When dealing with scanned images, I find quite inspiring the new approach taken
by RLG Programs and OCLC about Quantity vs Quality & Access vs Preservation.
However, working for an Institution where the photo collection is also
comprised of an overwhelming quantity of photos taken during Museum events or
field work record documentation, I would be interested to know how others are
dealing with the triage of any huge incoming quantity of unique "born digital"
assets.
In such case, one could say that the statement Quantity vs Quality morphs into
Quantity vs Preservation.
Currently the Museum, through initial review, secures Copyright ownership -
keeping only appropriate images. The Museum also deletes poor quality photos
and assesses the importance of the deposit itself ensuring that it is in
accordance with its mandate. These actions reduce the quantity per se but the
number of individual photos can still be quite significant.
Should other institutions be dealing with similar challenges and if some triage
principles/rules could be shared, this would help us greatly.
Thank you.
Louise Renaud
Manager, photos and copyright
Library, Archives and Documentation Services (LADS)
Canadian Museum of Civilization
100, rue Laurier Street, Gatineau, QC K1A 0M8
T?l: 819-776-8237 fax: 819-776-8491
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Nik
Honeysett
Sent: 8 janvier 2008 16:40
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Bravo to Sam (the man with the longest title in Museum Technology) for
questioning time honored advice. (Hmm... Time honored?). There are other
areas where this thinking is being applied very productively, for
example in software and website development.
I know this topic has come up before, but I'm concerned by the "do it
once, burn to DVD, never have to do it again" philosophy. Life
expectancy for this media is not in the "never" range. If you are on a
digitization initiative and buying large quantities of low quality media
you should be wary of the life expectancy of your archive. You may
_have_ to rescan or at least transfer to different media stock. In that
regard a more appropriate resolution based on your institution's short-
to mid- term needs (5-10 years?) may be appropriate.
Storage is cheap, but this compounds the problem. Bigger, faster,
cheaper means that you put more of your digital eggs in one media
basket. If one out of 10 DVDs fail, you loose 100 tiffs, if one out 10
HD-DVDs fail, you loose 1,000 tiffs.
-nik
>>> "Waibel,Guenter" 1/8/2008 9:37 AM >>>
Hi Perian,
A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go
for higher resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in
certain circumstances (for example, original art, fragile materials or
small high-value collections), but the situation you're describing is
different ("the documents aren't "precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh
the intended use of the material in making your decision. The advice you
received was accurate if your main goal is preservation, but that's not
what your post led me to believe. If your main goal is increased access
to as many items in your collection as fast as possible, I think a
different approach may be more suitable.
For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam
Quigley gave an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs
organized in Chicago '07, during which he began to question the
time-honored advice of "do it once for all time," and argued that a
model of rapid digitization for access may be just as valid to make
museum collections available as quickly as possible. It made me (and
some of my colleagues) refine our positions when it comes to
digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any more
than I've already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to
his talk at http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm.
Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put
together a provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some
of the forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at -
the end result is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth
considering in this context as well. You'll find it at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's
a pertinent excerpt:
"Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of
preservation, leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you
capture preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In
reality, due to the very special nature of these often unique materials,
we will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In
light of recent programs for the mass digitization of books, if special
collections and their funding continue to be marginalized, our
administrations may not keep us around to attend to the originals.
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Speaking from the archives world, the trend
toward putting out "more product" with "less
process"(Greene and Meissner) in archival
processing is also being seen in digitization
efforts. This is a desire to move away from
costly digitization (and descriptive) practices
toward more efficient and cost-effective methods
to get more of our collections out to users in digital form.
As G?nter aptly points out, this is make sense in
certain circumstances, especially in archives
which are often massive, where microfilm is still
*the* preservation format, and we have every
intention of preserving the originals. If these
documents don't have significant artifactual
value, I'd suggest to Perian to consider
microfilming and scanning the film vs. the
originals. The cost can be as little as $0.30 per image.
We're hearing more and more about gearing up our
digitization efforts and, with 10-15 years of
digitization practice under our belts, perhaps it
is time to review our practices and standards,
and begin to revisit the high bar we've set for
ourselves, a bar that may be limiting us in
serving one of our key missions: access.
Mary W. Elings
Archivist for Digital Collections
The Bancroft Library
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
Adjunct Faculty
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
MCN Standards SIG Chair
At 01:40 PM 1/8/2008, Nik Honeysett wrote:
>Bravo to Sam (the man with the longest title in
>Museum Technology) for questioning time honored
>advice. (Hmm... Time honored?). There are other
>areas where this thinking is being applied very
>productively, for example in software and
>website development. I know this topic has come
>up before, but I'm concerned by the "do it once,
>burn to DVD, never have to do it again"
>philosophy. Life expectancy for this media is
>not in the "never" range. If you are on a
>digitization initiative and buying large
>quantities of low quality media you should be
>wary of the life expectancy of your archive. You
>may _have_ to rescan or at least transfer to
>different media stock. In that regard a more
>appropriate resolution based on your
>institution's short- to mid- term needs (5-10
>years?) may be appropriate. Storage is cheap,
>but this compounds the problem. Bigger, faster,
>cheaper means that you put more of your digital
>eggs in one media basket. If one out of 10 DVDs
>fail, you loose 100 tiffs, if one out 10 HD-DVDs
>fail, you loose 1,000 tiffs. -nik >>>
>"Waibel,Guenter" 1/8/2008
>9:37 AM >>> Hi Perian, A lot of the responses
>you've received so far have advised you to go
>for higher resolution. I belief that this advice
>may make sense in certain circumstances (for
>example, original art, fragile materials or
>small high-value collections), but the situation
>you're describing is different ("the documents
>aren't "precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh
>the intended use of the material in making your
>decision. The advice you received was accurate
>if your main goal is preservation, but that's
>not what your post led me to believe. If your
>main goal is increased access to as many items
>in your collection as fast as possible, I think
>a different approach may be more suitable. For
>those of you who will be surprised to hear me
>say this... Sam Quigley gave an inspiring talk
>at an SAA preconference RLG Programs organized
>in Chicago '07, during which he began to
>question the time-honored advice of "do it once
>for all time," and argued that a model of rapid
>digitization for access may be just as valid to
>make museum collections available as quickly as
>possible. It made me (and some of my colleagues)
>refine our positions when it comes to
>digitization. Since I don't want to put words in
>Sam's mouth any more than I've already done (I
>suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to
>his talk at
>http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm.
>Some of my colleagues who were involved in
>organizing this event put together a provocative
>essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some
>of the forward-looking ideas discussed during
>the event Sam spoke at - the end result is very
>much aimed at the archival community, but worth
>considering in this context as well. You'll find
>it at
>http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf.
>Here's a pertinent excerpt: "Many of our digital
>initiatives have stressed the importance of
>preservation, leaving access as an afterthought
>(the idea being if you capture
>preservation-quality; you can always derive an
>access copy). In reality, due to the very
>special nature of these often unique materials,
>we will always preserve the originals to the
>best of our ability. In light of recent programs
>for the mass digitization of books, if special
>collections and their funding continue to be
>marginalized, our administrations may not keep
>us around to attend to the originals. In the
>past, we'
[MCN-L] MW2008: Best of the Web Nominations open
Museums and the Web 2008 the international conference for culture and heritage on-line April 9 - 12, 2008 Montreal, Quebec, Canada http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/ Deadline: February 1, 2008. Nominations are now being accepted for the Museums and the Web 2008: Best of the Web competition. See http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/best/index.html for full details. Museum Web sites from around the world may be nominated, provided they have been launched or significantly updated in 2007. Sites will be reviewed by an independent panel of judges, and awards made at the twelfth annual Museums and the Web Conference, in Montr?al, Canada, April 9-12, 2008. Categories http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/best/categories.html * On-line Exhibition * Educational Site * Museum Professional's Site * Research Site * Online Community or Service * Podcast (Audio / Video) * Innovative or Experimental Site * Small* * Best Overall Museum Site, selected by the judges from all of the sites nominated. Be sure to review the category definitions carefully before suggesting a site. Sites do much better when they are considered in the right context. Nomination http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/best/nominate.html Sites are put forward for the Best of the Web in an open (free of charge) nomination process. Anyone can nominate a site, and nominations of sites other than your own are encouraged. Sites from anywhere in the world are eligible, provided they have been launched or significantly updated in 2007. The process has been reviewed in an on-line discussion. Thanks to everyone who participated! Nominations are open, on-line, until February 1, 2008. We're looking forward, once again, to uncovering great work in museums large and small and highlighting it for the community. jennifer -- Jennifer Trant and David Bearman Co-Chairs: Museums and the Web 2008 produced by April 9-12, 2008, Montreal, Canada Archives & Museum Informatics http://www.archimuse.com/mw2008/158 Lee Avenue email: mw2008 at archimuse.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada phone +1 416 691 2516 / fax +1 416 352-6025 - Museums and the Web 2008 is presented in conjunction with the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN) and Canadian Culture Online (CCO). Museums and the Web 2008 is sponsored by Interwoven and Interflow.
[MCN-L] Server Room/Museum Environmental Monitoring
Looking for one solution that meets the needs of multiple areas within the museum. We are looking for a unified environmental monitoring system that upgrade our current system (which is gallery, temp, humidity myopic)and will meet the requirements of Conservation and Collections within the galleries... temp and humidity; Building Requirements... monitoring freezers, flooding, temperature; And Equipment protection... monitoring our server room for temp and humidity. I discovered we were prepared to purchase 3 separate systems and was hoping other museums may have had a similar experience deploying environmental monitoring systems. I realise this is in the grey area of being MCN relevant but hopefully this discussion will be of use to many. Troy Gauthier Manager, Information Technology Direct 604-827-5355 Email troy.gauthier at ubc.ca Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia 223A - 6393 N.W. Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 p. 604.827.5355 f. 604.822.2974 e. troy.gauthier at ubc.ca w. www.moa.ubc.ca
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Bravo to Sam (the man with the longest title in Museum Technology) for
questioning time honored advice. (Hmm... Time honored?). There are other
areas where this thinking is being applied very productively, for
example in software and website development.
I know this topic has come up before, but I'm concerned by the "do it
once, burn to DVD, never have to do it again" philosophy. Life
expectancy for this media is not in the "never" range. If you are on a
digitization initiative and buying large quantities of low quality media
you should be wary of the life expectancy of your archive. You may
_have_ to rescan or at least transfer to different media stock. In that
regard a more appropriate resolution based on your institution's short-
to mid- term needs (5-10 years?) may be appropriate.
Storage is cheap, but this compounds the problem. Bigger, faster,
cheaper means that you put more of your digital eggs in one media
basket. If one out of 10 DVDs fail, you loose 100 tiffs, if one out 10
HD-DVDs fail, you loose 1,000 tiffs.
-nik
>>> "Waibel,Guenter" 1/8/2008 9:37 AM >>>
Hi Perian,
A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go
for higher resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in
certain circumstances (for example, original art, fragile materials or
small high-value collections), but the situation you're describing is
different ("the documents aren't "precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh
the intended use of the material in making your decision. The advice you
received was accurate if your main goal is preservation, but that's not
what your post led me to believe. If your main goal is increased access
to as many items in your collection as fast as possible, I think a
different approach may be more suitable.
For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam
Quigley gave an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs
organized in Chicago '07, during which he began to question the
time-honored advice of "do it once for all time," and argued that a
model of rapid digitization for access may be just as valid to make
museum collections available as quickly as possible. It made me (and
some of my colleagues) refine our positions when it comes to
digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any more
than I've already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to
his talk at http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm.
Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put
together a provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some
of the forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at -
the end result is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth
considering in this context as well. You'll find it at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's
a pertinent excerpt:
"Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of
preservation, leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you
capture preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In
reality, due to the very special nature of these often unique materials,
we will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In
light of recent programs for the mass digitization of books, if special
collections and their funding continue to be marginalized, our
administrations may not keep us around to attend to the originals.
In the past, we've soothed our doubts by repeating the mantra, "we'll
only get one chance to do it, so it's got to be done right." Experience
has shown that that is not in fact the case. Often we do go back when
the technology improves or when we better understand our users' needs.
We need to put on our helmets now and go for the biggest bang for the
buck in terms of access."
Cheers,
G?nter
***
G?nter Waibel
RLG Programs, OCLC
voice: +1-650-287-2144
G?nter blogs at ... http://www.hangingtogether.org
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Perian Sully
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:24 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi all:
We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image
sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so
we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600
or
300 dpi.
On the 300 side:
1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi
(that
being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet)
2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG
3) storage space concerns
4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need
600
dpi treatment
5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and
photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG
(ie. handling concerns aren't as great)
On the 600 side:
1) scan once and be done with it
2) we do someti
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
I would definitely scan at a minimum of 600 dpi for printed matter. That's what the National Yiddish Book Center uses for the Yiddish books they scan. It is slightly coarse, but works well for the technology (and storage space) that were available at the time. Today, I would look at 1200 or 2400 dpi if plausible and settle for 600 dpi if not. There is probably nothing for which 300dpi is a reasonable resolution except for a throw-away that is being used for an immediate purpose (the scanner equivalent of storing materials on optical media--great for many purposes at hand, not relevant or appropriate to archives). TIFF is a fine archival format. Many institutions have started using it (and our institution is among the zillion who are looking at it) but there is no rush to change. ari On Jan 8, 2008 11:24 AM, Perian Sully wrote: > Hi all: > > We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image > sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so > we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or > 300 dpi. > > On the 300 side: > 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that > being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) > 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG > 3) storage space concerns > 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 > dpi treatment > 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and > photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG > (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) > > On the 600 side: > 1) scan once and be done with it > 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests > 3) storage is cheap > 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we > don't have RAW to fall back upon > > We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and > photographs and 3D materials in 600. > > What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back > upon here? > > Thanks in advance! > > Perian Sully > Collection Information and New Media Coordinator > Judah L. Magnes Museum > 2911 Russell St. > Berkeley, CA 94705 > 510-549-6950 x 335 > http://www.magnes.org > Contributor, http://www.musematic.org > > ___ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer > Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l >
[MCN-L] no daily digest for a week
I have not received the daily digest for over a week. Have there been no messages posted? John John R. Bedard Director of Information Projects and Services The Minneapolis Institute of Arts 2400 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Phone: 612-870-3268 Fax: 612-870-3004 Email: JBedard at artsmia.org www.artsmia.org www.artsconnected.org
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi Perian,
A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go for higher
resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in certain circumstances
(for example, original art, fragile materials or small high-value collections),
but the situation you're describing is different ("the documents aren't
"precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh the intended use of the material in
making your decision. The advice you received was accurate if your main goal is
preservation, but that's not what your post led me to believe. If your main
goal is increased access to as many items in your collection as fast as
possible, I think a different approach may be more suitable.
For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam Quigley gave
an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs organized in Chicago
'07, during which he began to question the time-honored advice of "do it once
for all time," and argued that a model of rapid digitization for access may be
just as valid to make museum collections available as quickly as possible. It
made me (and some of my colleagues) refine our positions when it comes to
digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any more than I've
already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to his talk at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm.
Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put together a
provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some of the
forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at - the end result
is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth considering in this
context as well. You'll find it at
http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's a
pertinent excerpt:
"Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of preservation,
leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you capture
preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In reality, due to
the very special nature of these often unique materials, we will always
preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In light of recent programs
for the mass digitization of books, if special collections and their funding
continue to be marginalized, our administrations may not keep us around to
attend to the originals.
In the past, we've soothed our doubts by repeating the mantra, "we'll only get
one chance to do it, so it's got to be done right." Experience has shown that
that is not in fact the case. Often we do go back when the technology improves
or when we better understand our users' needs. We need to put on our helmets
now and go for the biggest bang for the buck in terms of access."
Cheers,
G?nter
***
G?nter Waibel
RLG Programs, OCLC
voice: +1-650-287-2144
G?nter blogs at ... http://www.hangingtogether.org
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Perian Sully
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:24 AM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi all:
We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image
sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so
we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or
300 dpi.
On the 300 side:
1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that
being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet)
2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG
3) storage space concerns
4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600
dpi treatment
5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and
photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG
(ie. handling concerns aren't as great)
On the 600 side:
1) scan once and be done with it
2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests
3) storage is cheap
4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we
don't have RAW to fall back upon
We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and
photographs and 3D materials in 600.
What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back
upon here?
Thanks in advance!
Perian Sully
Collection Information and New Media Coordinator
Judah L. Magnes Museum
2911 Russell St.
Berkeley, CA 94705
510-549-6950 x 335
http://www.magnes.org
Contributor, http://www.musematic.org
___
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
All, Resolution is only half the battle. Ensure that youre getting adequate pixels along the longer dimension of the image. 8000 without interpolation is a good starting point. Consider scanner quality as well. If youre looking to "scan once" make sure youre using a publication quality scanner such as an Imacon, Creo, or Kodak. I dont exactly agree with no color correction in Photoshop. Its best to keep your scanner calibrated and have it output the image to Adobe RGB 1998 as a working embedded profile. The scanner calibrations wont change very much, but it is something to watch. - JEFF Jeffrey Evans Digital Imaging Specialist Princeton University Art Museum 609.258.8579 On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Becky Bristol wrote: > We scan at 3000 or 4000 dpi and burn the tiffs to DVD. > NO need to ever rescan. Images are of publication quality with no to > very little color correction. > All color correction is also done within the scanning software NOT > photoshop. > Ideally scanning or photographing a RAW image is best save that as a > TIFF convert or copy image to JPG and manipulate as needed. > > Becky Bristol > Image Manager > Ingalls Library > Cleveland Museum of Art > 11150 East Boulevard > Cleveland, Ohio 44106 > 216.707.2544 > > > -Original Message- > From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On > Behalf Of > Perian Sully > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 AM > To: Museum Computer Network Listserv > Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? > > > Hi all: > > We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image > sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so > we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as > 600 or > 300 dpi. > > On the 300 side: > 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi > (that > being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) > 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG > 3) storage space concerns > 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily > need 600 > dpi treatment > 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and > photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG > (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) > > On the 600 side: > 1) scan once and be done with it > 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests > 3) storage is cheap > 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, > since we > don't have RAW to fall back upon > > We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and > photographs and 3D materials in 600. > > What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back > upon here? > > Thanks in advance! > > Perian Sully > Collection Information and New Media Coordinator > Judah L. Magnes Museum > 2911 Russell St. > Berkeley, CA 94705 > 510-549-6950 x 335 > http://www.magnes.org > Contributor, http://www.musematic.org > > ___ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l > ___ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi Perian, I would recommend scanning at 600 dpi if you can afford it. It's best to scan only once, and at the highest quality you can. That way, your images are 'use neutral,' meaning they can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes. I prefer master images of archival documents to be 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit color and 600 dpi, because these settings are more able to capture detail in deteriorating, faded, or soiled materials, not to mention messy handwriting! Keep the 600 dpi TIFFs as archival copies, and then make 300 dpi JPEG derivatives as needed. I hope this helps! Megan Potts Digital Asset Specialist Corning Museum of Glass pottsmh at cmog.org -Original Message- From: Perian Sully [mailto:psu...@magnes.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi all: We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or 300 dpi. On the 300 side: 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG 3) storage space concerns 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 dpi treatment 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) On the 600 side: 1) scan once and be done with it 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests 3) storage is cheap 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we don't have RAW to fall back upon We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and photographs and 3D materials in 600. What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back upon here? Thanks in advance! Perian Sully Collection Information and New Media Coordinator Judah L. Magnes Museum 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 510-549-6950 x 335 http://www.magnes.org Contributor, http://www.musematic.org ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
We scan at 3000 or 4000 dpi and burn the tiffs to DVD. NO need to ever rescan. Images are of publication quality with no to very little color correction. All color correction is also done within the scanning software NOT photoshop. Ideally scanning or photographing a RAW image is best save that as a TIFF convert or copy image to JPG and manipulate as needed. Becky Bristol Image Manager Ingalls Library Cleveland Museum of Art 11150 East Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44106 216.707.2544 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Perian Sully Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi all: We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or 300 dpi. On the 300 side: 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG 3) storage space concerns 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 dpi treatment 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) On the 600 side: 1) scan once and be done with it 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests 3) storage is cheap 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we don't have RAW to fall back upon We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and photographs and 3D materials in 600. What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back upon here? Thanks in advance! Perian Sully Collection Information and New Media Coordinator Judah L. Magnes Museum 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 510-549-6950 x 335 http://www.magnes.org Contributor, http://www.musematic.org ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Ahh yes the "magic" number of DPI Here's a few other considerations to add to the mix. Resolution should also be tied to the details in the thing being scanned. For Microfilming documents, a quality scale was developed to ensure that items were captured at the proper level. The UIUC Library turned this method into a handy resolution calculator http://images.library.uiuc.edu/calculator/index.htm This was done some time ago and hasn't been updated to the current resolution best practices, so I'd be inclined to bump up the resolution a bit from what it reports as optimal. The important thing is that it doesn't focus on the size of the paper, but on the size of the smallest character or detail in what you are scanning. If your documents are pretty consistent, its easy enough to tell the scan operator what to use. But it also leaves room for upping the resolution when required - e.g. government publications that have 6pt font for footnotes, or maps and illustrations with fine details. We'd all like to follow the highest standards possible but sometimes reality means we can't do that. If corners must be cut, have a good, thoughtful and carefully considered reason for not following best practices. Instead of arbitrarily rounding down for everything, think about a triage system based on light sensitivity or fragility of the materials. Materials that are brittle or damaged should be scanned at higher resolution than materials that are in good condition and could take a re-scanning without further damage.Or you might identify certain collections as more important, or more frequently used to justify doing some materials at a higher resolution than other materials. Basing resolution on past requests is a sure way to paint yourself into a corner. Quality should be optimized for future use, not past use. Having a good estimate of what you're going to need can also help make the argument. TASI has a great storage calculator that can help with planning. http://tasi.ac.uk/resources/toolbox.html And lastly, resolution is only one metric for quality. Nothing wastes storage space faster than high resolution scans the use the wrong bit depth, have poor tonal quality or otherwise Richard rjurabn at uiuc.edu On Jan 8, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Perian Sully wrote: > Hi all: > > We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image > sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so > we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as > 600 or > 300 dpi. > > On the 300 side: > 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi > (that > being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) > 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG > 3) storage space concerns > 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily > need 600 > dpi treatment > 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and > photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG > (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) > > On the 600 side: > 1) scan once and be done with it > 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests > 3) storage is cheap > 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, > since we > don't have RAW to fall back upon > > We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and > photographs and 3D materials in 600. > > What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back > upon here? > > Thanks in advance! > > Perian Sully > Collection Information and New Media Coordinator > Judah L. Magnes Museum > 2911 Russell St. > Berkeley, CA 94705 > 510-549-6950 x 335 > http://www.magnes.org > Contributor, http://www.musematic.org > > ___ > You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum > Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) > > To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu > > To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: > http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Perian, Regarding scanning dpi, check the de facto best practices published by National Archives. http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/digitizing-archival-materials.html It covers all the materials and provides an easy-to-use guidelines (page 52 -58). The scanning quality can be varied regarding materials and size. If your institution is capable, you might consider using JPEG2000, instead of TIFF. Yan Han Systems Librarian The University of Arizona Libraries -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Potts, Megan H. Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:34 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi Perian, I would recommend scanning at 600 dpi if you can afford it. It's best to scan only once, and at the highest quality you can. That way, your images are 'use neutral,' meaning they can be used and re-used for a variety of purposes. I prefer master images of archival documents to be 8-bit grayscale or 24-bit color and 600 dpi, because these settings are more able to capture detail in deteriorating, faded, or soiled materials, not to mention messy handwriting! Keep the 600 dpi TIFFs as archival copies, and then make 300 dpi JPEG derivatives as needed. I hope this helps! Megan Potts Digital Asset Specialist Corning Museum of Glass pottsmh at cmog.org -Original Message- From: Perian Sully [mailto:psu...@magnes.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:24 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes? Hi all: We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or 300 dpi. On the 300 side: 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG 3) storage space concerns 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 dpi treatment 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) On the 600 side: 1) scan once and be done with it 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests 3) storage is cheap 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we don't have RAW to fall back upon We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and photographs and 3D materials in 600. What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back upon here? Thanks in advance! Perian Sully Collection Information and New Media Coordinator Judah L. Magnes Museum 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 510-549-6950 x 335 http://www.magnes.org Contributor, http://www.musematic.org ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
[MCN-L] IP SIG and Academics: Copyright & Academic Integrity Workshops
- Original Message - From: "Olga Francois" Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:01 PM Subject: Early Registration Reminder: Copyright & AI Workshops Colleagues, Please forward this announcement to interested faculty and staff: In recent years, plagiarism and cheating have been highlighted in the news. Whether discussing high-profile cases like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Godwin or reviewing works on the subject by notables like Judge Richard Posner, the public appears keenly interested in plagiarism. Plagiarism detection devices, once all the rage are, with greater intensity, being challenged legally and ethically as inappropriate vehicles for detecting plagiarism. Most recently, Turnitin.com is in the middle of litigation challenging its business practices as violations of copyright law. Please join the Center for Intellectual Property as we attempt to address the plagiarism and cheating issues on college campuses and try to build communities that value academic integrity. --- Building a Community that Values Academic Integrity http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa/ --- Dates: February 25 - March 7, 2008 Moderators: Gary Pavela, M.A., J.D., Director of Judicial Programs and Student Ethical Development, University of Maryland -- College Park & Kimberly Bonner, J.D., Executive Director, Center for Intellectual Property, University of Maryland University College Studies show that establishing a community of shared academic values fosters academic integrity in the classroom. However, establishing that community may be more difficult when students adopt the values of a digital "remix" culture that challenges the traditional understanding of authorship. How do institutions foster academic integrity values in light of changing cultural norms? Are there special techniques and tools required? Are the best tools to use in preventing academic dishonesty "technical" like Turnitin.com? And are there additional legal and ethical issues involved when using technical measures to prevent academic dishonesty? Please see site for detailed course objectives- http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa/workshops.shtml#AI --- ALSO, EARLY REGISTRATION ENDS JAN 11TH FOR: Integrating Access to Digital Course Materials: Blackboard/WebCT, Coursepacks, e-Reserves, Licensed Materials, e-Books, Open Access...What Will They Think of Next? Moderator: Georgia Harper, J.D., Scholarly Communications Advisor, University Libraries, University of Texas at Austin January 28 - February 8, 2008 SIGN UP NOW: Early Bird Rates $150 http://tinyurl.com/29jg53 [Secured Server] Online Workshop FAQ- http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa/faq.shtml Complete 2007-2008 Workshop Series see- http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ipa/ For more on the Center for Intellectual Property's resources & services please see our homepage- http://www.umuc.edu/cip/ -- Olga Francois, Assistant Director Center for Intellectual Property University of Maryland University College 3501 University Blvd. East, PGM3-780 Adelphi, MD 20783 ofrancois at umuc.edu
[MCN-L] Archive materials - image sizes?
Hi all: We're currently having a debate about the appropriate scanned image sizes for archival documents. Our scanner doesn't scan into RAW, so we're batting back and forth whether to save the master TIFFs as 600 or 300 dpi. On the 300 side: 1) many of our archival materials were already scanned at 300 dpi (that being the original size I designated, but we've a long way to go yet) 2) the majority of our reproduction requests are for 300 dpi JPG 3) storage space concerns 4) archive materials are mostly documents and don't necessarily need 600 dpi treatment 5) since the documents aren't "precious" like the 3D materials and photographs, we can go back and rescan if we really need a 600 dpi JPG (ie. handling concerns aren't as great) On the 600 side: 1) scan once and be done with it 2) we do sometimes receive 600 dpi JPG requests 3) storage is cheap 4) make sure the master TIFF is as high as quality as possible, since we don't have RAW to fall back upon We're also thinking about scanning the documents at 300 dpi, and photographs and 3D materials in 600. What do other institutions do? Any best practices we should fall back upon here? Thanks in advance! Perian Sully Collection Information and New Media Coordinator Judah L. Magnes Museum 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 510-549-6950 x 335 http://www.magnes.org Contributor, http://www.musematic.org
[MCN-L] Hot repl1ca w4tches from 2008 Etubu
Winter is hitting and New Year is coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.beudyyte.com/ tEXVPJAn
