[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[padg] Re: RE: High volume digitization equipment
Walter,
The following may answer some of your questions.
We do not have high volume digitization equipment but, for in-house
digitization--5 staff, various imaging equipment (Betterlight, Creo,
Phase One, Zeutschel), we instituted a condition assessment policy that
must be carried out prior to a digitization project being approved.
There is a form (designed by preservation and digitization staff) that
the curator or collection manager must sign. There are two choices
on the form.
The first, the curator, etc. signs off declaring that they are aware of
and understand the condition of the object or collection material and
approve digitization going forward, and furthermore they understand that
they are ultimately responsible for any damage occurring during
digitization because of this approval/decision. (Our camera
operators are well-trained and well-experienced in handling fragile
material--books, flat paper, photos, etc. And yes, sometimes damage
results despite the most careful and sensitive handling.) At this
point, a conservator is not formally involved in assessing the condition
of the material. Copies of the signed form are distributed among
the various parties involved, including imaging staff.
The second choice is that the curator, etc. asks for a condition
assessment of the object or collection prior to project approval.
When this is the case, rare books or paper conservators carry out an
abbreviated condition assessment of the material (perhaps with the
curator, etc. present), noting, if evident or likely, various types of
damage. But this is not the same as a full condition report prior
to actual conservation treatment, although a form (in development) will
be used. Any damage is recorded on the form and supplemented with
snapshot digital photos. The conservator can recommend that
something not be digitized if there is a determination that damage will
result from handling during digitization. The assessment report
then goes to the curator, etc. If this person wishes to go ahead
with the digitization after reading the report, then, again, the form
requires this person's signature and acceptance of any damage that might
occur because of that decision. Again, copies of both forms are
distributed.
The backup for either choice is that imaging staff will immediately stop
their work if something occurs during handling and digitization.
(They will be informed of this possibility through the form they receive
with the material.) They will call in conservation and curatorial
staff for consultation and record the problem with snapshot digital
photos. All staff in consultation together will determine how to
proceed.
This policy insures that everyone in the imaging chain--from curator to
conservator to imaging staff--know the condition of the material and
accept any consequences of digitization. Everything is recorded,
everyone is informed, everyone is in agreement, no one is
blind-sided.
Robert Milevski
At 08:10 AM 2/19/2009, you wrote:
In addition to being interested
in seeing responses to Winston?s posting, I would greatly appreciate
hearing from any conservators, preservation librarians or scanning
technicians who have made condition evaluations of bound printed
collection material in a large scale digitization project using either a
dual camera robotic page-turning scanner or a dual camera manual
page-turning scanner designed for a high-volume workflow.
Specifically:
1. Were decisions to withdraw items from the scanning queue made
subjectively or were specific criteria applied? Were condition
evaluations made in advance of project start-up or as the project
progressed?
2. If a robotic scanning device was used:
(a) were only items considered to be in good enough condition for
scanning on the robotic device digitized?
(b) were some items scanned on the device with the robotic device
disabled ? if so approximately what percent were selected for manual page
turning? What criteria were used to decide this?
(c) were two dual-camera machines used (one for robotic, one for manual
page turning with the robotic device disabled)?
3. What options were considered for items perceived to be at risk
of damage whether the robotic device was used or pages were turned
manually?
(a) do
not scan?
(b)
scan on an alternate device with book cradle?
4. What options were considered for fold-outs?
(a) do
not scan?
(b)
scan on an alternate device?
5. If one or more separate workflows were developed for any reason
(foldouts; risk of damage on dual camera device; entire volume too large
or small for scanning with the dual camera device, etc.), was the
scanning done on-site or shipped to an alternate site?
Also would be interested in hearing (off-list would be fine) from anyone
willing to discuss how any of these variations impacted cost.
Many thanks.
Walter Cybulski
Preservation and Collection Mgmt. Section
National Library of Medicine
Bldg. 38 Room B1E-21
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894
301-496-2690
cybulskw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********************
Robert J. Milevski
Preservation Librarian
and Manager, Typography Studio
Princeton University Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-5591