Message-Id: <mailto:199408200132.UAA06530@library.wustl.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 20:03:46 -0400 From: Howard Besser 514939-7000 or 510642-2231 <mailto:howard@CCA.QC.CA> Subject: Re: [Q] Which Scanner for manuscripts To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB <mailto:IMAGELIB@ARIZVM1.BITNET>
Concerning the discussion spawned by Vineet Jain from IBM over whether to photograph onto film first or to scan directly from the manuscripts:I would strongly caution people against making blanket statements about what is best in all cases. Sometimes it may be advisable to use photographic film first then scan that, and sometimes it's better to scan directly from the original object. It really depends upon the collection, the user needs, and the institution's capabilities.
While the interim step of photography does provide a surrogate that we have solid preservation data about, there is no guarantee that the photographic surrogate will be of higher quality than directly scanning off the image. Today, generally speaking, photographic film captures more information than most scanners do. But this is not true in all cases, and depends upon a variety of factors. For example, if an institution is not capable of carefully lighting and photographing the manuscripts (quite a time-consuming process), they may very well get better quality images from a medium-range flatbed scanner. Or if a manuscript is not very "rich" in information (dynamic range and resolution), capturing onto a richer capture medium will give you no added value. (bluntly put, even if slides can capture more image quality than your scanner, it can't capture any more than is there.)
I hope that everyone on this list realizes that there are an extremely diverse group of projects represented here, and that what may be the best solution for some of us is not necessarily the best solution for all of us. Any solutions really must take into consideration the collection, user needs, and the institution.