Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- From: Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 09:06:04 -0400
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 10:35:16 GMT, Mike Fox <mikefox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So--at highest quality JEPG, even the one and only save to DVD will
loose quality, though it will be imperceptable. At 133 MB TIFFs,
this equates to 35 images to a DVD vs 60 images for JPEG. I'm going
to be scanning thousands of 35mm slides for a family history archive.
With a little luck, the DVD will last 20 years and be transcribed to
Don't rely on luck. As in Vegas it only works for some.
If you are truly doing thousands you need to save high quality
duplicates and keep them in separate places.
As it stands right now, no one knows just how long optical media will
last be it CDs or DVDs that we burn.
the next generation of media. It's my hope the images will travel
100s of years of progress in imaging technology as they are passed
through future generations. Skimping now makes no sense.
Data migration is usually pretty easy if the user has the capability
of reading *both* types of media which is not often the case. Or
course that is assuming there will be someone interested in doing the
migration when it needs to be done.
Another important point is continued data integrity verification. The
DVDs should be tested periodically to make sure they are not failing
and this needs to be a quality check, not just whether they can still
be read.
For now, however, 133 MB files are a bit cumbersome. I'll need to
resample them down to a usable size. Any suggestions on batch
processing bunches of images to downsize them for today's
applications?
Most photo apps can do that. You can set up a macro in Photoshop to
do it. Photoshop Elements and I believe Paint Shop Pro both have the
ability built in.
However you want to save the originals at the highest quality possible
now. You can always down size them, but going back up is always a
losing battle. Lost information from down sizing can not be regained.
Some important things to remember: The original film *probably will
have a longer life than the optical media if properly stored. You are
still going to have said images so how do you plan on storing them?
What do you plan on using for a catalog, or filing system? How will
you link the new digital files back to the original images. One final
caution: No matter how good your system, no matter how elaborate,
sooner or later something in it will break and most often that break
is caused by some one rather than the system.
Contrary to what some have said on here, Hard drives DO NOT MAKE a
GOOD ARCHIVAL SYSTEM!. Even in a RAID configuration they do not make
a good archival system. When it comes to data integrity failure, 95
to 99% comes from the keyboard, not from hard drive failure. So when
mirroring, or indexing the odds are when you run into a data
corruption you are going to have it mirrored and indexed. However for
that few percent it is nice to have the indexing and mirroring. If a
drive does fail and I had a 250 Gig WD fail just a few weeks ago, then
a hot swapable, indexed system is fantastic as you replace the drive
and the system will rebuild it.
For archival storage you need to go with either a high quality tape
system which needs to be refreshed on occasion and stored properly, or
optical which still has a few unknowns.
HOWEVER I hasten to add that I've only lost a few drives over the
years and as in the case with the 250, it was backed up. BTW the 250
expired just two weeks AFTER the warranty expired.
I will also add that two of the systems here have RAIDs, but they are
striped and each computer is backed up across a gigabit network.
Instead of RAID mirroring, I use drive backup.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/scanning.htm is one place to start and a
few ideas for a project of this kind.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
.
Thanks
Mike
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:05:37 -0400, Raphael Bustin <foo@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:54:27 GMT, Mike Fox <guyisfoxy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I know the good vs the bad for TIFF vs JEPG, but I don't know it for
DVDs.
I'm going to be scanning archival quality images of 35 mm slides that
in TIFF will come to 133 MB files. In JEPG, they'll be a lot less.
I'll be burning the files to a 4.7 GB DVD when I get enough to fill
one.
My question; Will I have significant quality loss to scan them as
JEPGs and burn them to a DVD as JEPGs as an archive? In dirivative
use of the images, I'd resample them to TIFFs and edit and save them
as TIFFs.
First off, I assume you'd be talking about the highest-quality
ie., minimal-compression JPG settings. These will give you
file sizes about 60% smaller than the equivalent 24 bit per
pixel TIFFs.
Yes, JPG is lossy, but on a high-res scan, I defy anyone to
actually see the difference between a 24-bit TIFF and its
equivalent high-quality/low-compression JPG.
So here's what I do... I scan images as TIFFs, and when
the time comes to archive them to DVD, I keep the JPG
equivalent on my hard drive. So my DVDs have the TIF
originals, and my hard drive has equivalent JPGs. If it's
a critical application (rare) I may dig up the TIF from the
archives, but in most cases the JPG will do just fine.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- From: J . Teske
- Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- References:
- TIFF vs JEPG
- From: Mike Fox
- Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- From: Raphael Bustin
- Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- From: Mike Fox
- TIFF vs JEPG
- Prev by Date: Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- Next by Date: Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- Previous by thread: Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- Next by thread: Re: TIFF vs JEPG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
