Dear Edward,
Thanks for the enlightening answer, higher resolution would be beneficial but would result
in huge data storage cost ( >5PB ). "Master images" are images that will be
used for long-term preservation. RAW files are considered not safe for long term
preservation as well as any images that do not conform to any well-enstablished standard.
For this reason, I would like to have the full specification of ECIRGBv2 to be able to
conform to other directives such as OAIS open archival sys.
I thought that ECI had better gamut in the red while Adobe1988 in the blue, am I wrong?
I'll try to find the input profile of the instruments, thanks for the tip.
Now we are still at the beginning but you are welcome to come to visit us. It's
actually the oldest library in Europe that continued working almost interruptedly from V
century, so it's an interesting place for anyone involved in the printing industry
besides paleographers.
Best regards,
Giacomo
________________________________
From: eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com
<eci-en-bounces(a)lists.callassoftware.com> on behalf of edward taffel
<etaffel(a)me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 7:49 PM
To: eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com <eci-en(a)lists.callassoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [ECI-EN] eciRGB_v2 space color for digitization of ancient manuscripts
On Mar 18, 2020, at 11:58 AM, Giacomo Marchioro
<giacomo.marchioro@univr.it<mailto:giacomo.marchioro@univr.it>> wrote:
Hello Edward,
in this sector, there are manly two guidelines: FADGI (American guidelines) and
Metamorphose (from Nederlands).
FADGI<http://www.digitizationguidelines.gov/guidelines/FADGI%20Federal%2…
suggests Adobe1998, ProPhoto or ECIRGBv2 while
Metamorphose<https://www.metamorfoze.nl/sites/default/files/publicatie_documenten/Metamorfoze_Preservation_Imaging_Guidelines_1.0.pdf#page=9>
only ECIRGBv2. I am not sure regarding the rationale of these choices.
given systems where textual information & facsimile, from viewpoint of easy reference,
are the desiderata, the rationale for ECIRGBv2 seem very sound to me. if i understand the
term «master» correctly, i think both sets of guidelines too weak for aesthetically
critical work: i should always scan at much higher resolution & convert to lab,
repurposing for whatever requirements the future may present—i believe this the best
investment. but, [real] scholars will always need to handle the originals, anyway.
So the first point is that ECIRGBv2 is the only one that is accepted from both.
I would like to use the large gamut of ProPhoto but because these master files will be
24-bit images (8-bit per channel) so using ProPhoto could result in posterization effects
furthermore is not well established.
Adobe1998 would be quite a good choice because of its larger adoption, but in the case of
manuscripts that have many red inks a larger gamut in the red I think could be
beneficial.
ancient pigments can contain many out-of-gamut components. while Adobe1998 has deeper red
space, have you compared input profiles of equipment under consideration to both? you may
be contemplating reds that your scanner won’t see, anyway.
Regarding the equipment, we are deciding between some scanners e.g.
Metis<https://www.metis-group.com/product/drs-1300-dcs-heritage> DRS-13000 and Phase
ONE cameras.
Let me know if you think there is something I have missed!
extremely interesting work—i should love to have the opportunity to pore over those
manuscripts.
best,
edward