I think that states it well. There are mechanical limitations now that would urge the saving of the original until a later time. But, to Phil Lord's philosophical point, we also need to examine what we save and why. The problem is that it appears that there is too quick a rush to judge as very acceptable the quality of reproduction to be had from the media currently assigned to hold those copies, well as to accept as quasi-eternal the durability of that same media. My only point in originally jumping into the conversation last month was lament the loss of artifacts. I suppose I'll always be a "curator-type," i.e. a saver, at heart. But I acknowledge that, to some, the loss of the original is not a loss. Joe Cutshall-King "Thomas W. Perrin" wrote: > My comments on Digital photography being performed by low end cameras > were based > upon an examination of the machines and their specifications at the > Canon booth > at the American Library Association meeting in New Orleans a year and a > half ago. > > While it is true that I can put together a superb (color, high > resolution, depth of field) digital photography setup in my home for > less than $5000, including computer, the fact remains that the > processing of material is slow. (as it should be). > > I suggest that the machines being purchased by institutions are more > likely to fall into the expensive ($15,000 and up) low resolution (300 > dpi), black and white, high speed, high volume cameras. > > There is a significant technical limitation with regards to image > quality: the higher the quality, the more memory is required and the > processing time between images is correspondingly increased, thus > slowing the whole process down. The progression of the limitation is > geometric rather than arithmetic. A small increase in resolution > mandates a disproportionately greater increase in memory and speed > requirements. > > I can purchase a large format digital Leica camera for $24,000 that > will exceed any specification that film has to offer. But it's > impractical with regards to memory storage and speed for the kind of > volume processing that we are talking about. > > On the other hand, IF the originals are preserved, then within decades > we may be able to revisit them with more efficient technology. > > Tom Perrin