scarcity of digital preservation efforts - was Re: eBay... Yikes!

film will outlast a solar flare though On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Dave McGuire<mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: > On 08/31/2011 07:45 PM, Toby Thain wrote: > >> Is it at least the case that someone can "see the damn image" (which >>> is usually the end point of digital imaging anyway) even if a lot of the >>> metadata, layering, etc etc aren't usable? >>> >> >> Unless the "flattened" (composited) image is baked in, then you can see >> most of the constituent parts (e.g. image layers, masks) but you can't >> see what the whole would actually look like. Which is why my tool is >> really aimed at scavenging what can be scavenged >> ( http://telegraphics.com.au/**svn/psdparse/trunk<http://telegraphics.com.… there's a very fast >> command line converter to Gimp XCF in there, too). >> >> As for metadata, some of the structure of it is documented, but detailed >> interpretation is another matter. Again -- this speaks to a desire to >> hinder competition& interoperability. If the Gimp knew exactly how to >> render a PSD, then this would probably eat away at Adobe's extortionate >> licensing :) >> > > I hear you there. But what about getting just a human-usable version of > the image, without all the metadata? The original discussion here was > comparing the non-losability of film-based images (which is a farce anyway, > as negatives do deteriorate over time no matter how well-kept they are) > which won't have all that metadata anyway. If the "flattened" image isn't > present in a particular PSD file (is it possible for it not to be?) is it at > all possible to "get there from here", as it were? > > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL >