Message-Id: <mailto:199412131624.KAA22136@library.wustl.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:25:37 -0500 From: Pamela Mason <mailto:pmason@NALUSDA.GOV> Subject: UNM Imaging Project To: Multiple recipients of list IMAGELIB
>
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:03:24 -0700
> From: Lisa kindrick <mailto:lkindric@BIBLIO.UNM.EDU>
> Subject: UNM Hlth Sci Cntr Imaging Project
>
> The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Library is
> embarking on a project to link images of black & white and color
> photographs and slides to bibliographic records in its online catalog
> using software developed by Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
>
> Currently, our plans are to create a master TIFF image at 600 dpi,
> and then to link a TIFF image at a lower resolution, possibly 300
> dpi, to the record in the online catalog for viewing. I would
> appreciate this group's reaction to this approach and advice on any
> pitfalls we should avoid. Should we compress the lower resolution
> image (if so, what compression scheme should we use?), scan at a
> lower resolution than 300 dpi for viewing, etc. We plan to store the
> images on an optical disk system and to eventually make them
> available over the Internet as part of our online catalog.
[etc..]
I think you will get the best compression for the black and white images by using CCITT Group 4 Compression. For color, since you did not identify what level of color scanning you were considering (8-bit, 24-bit, or...??) or what types of images (continuous tone with many colors, simple images with few colors, to name a few), I'd like to know more about them before hazarding a guess.
600 dpi for an archival image is a good choice, as I would think 300 dpi would be for the viewing image. Lower than that is ok to be readable online, but if they are to be printed there is a loss of quality. It would also depend on what type sizes are involved, if that can be categorized. Smaller type would require a 300 dpi image at a minimum. Larger, you might be able to do a viewing image at lower resolution, say 200, but it really does not seem worth it for the file size savings.
Others on the list may have more to say about this (or even to have said it already --I've been away from email for a while and am just catching up.)
Best, Pamela *ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ* | Pamela Mason, Project Manager | National Agricultural Library |
| mailto:pmason@nalusda.gov | Information Systems Division |
| Phone: (301) 504-6813 | 10301 Baltimore Blvd. |
| Phone: (301) 504-7473 | Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 |
*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*ÿ*
> > Lisa Kindrick > Systems Librarian
> University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Library
> mailto:lkindric@biblio.unm.edu
> (505) 277-3857
>