Re: HYB:AIS:Checklist

Very well said. You not only made your points clearly but did it in an 
thoughtful and considerate way. I am in awe.

Though nowhere near as well said, consider also the challenge of what kind of 
iris photo should you use? One close up of just one bloom, or a clump shot, 
or one full stalk shot? Wouldn't you like to see an example of the varieties 
branching, etc.? So would you then have multiple shots for each? Egads...

I do believe that John Jones has said that they are working towards making the 
lists electronically accessible. Even if it is first on a web page and later 
by cd, there's no reason that photos can't be considered later once the 
initial very large hurdles are overcome. Info first, frills later...

On Tuesday 08 October 2002 23:03, Steve Szabo wrote:
> Bobby,
>
> John is right more than he is wrong.  There are many varieties of iris that
> are very close to one another in color and pattern. If images are supplied,
> and they are not seen as they are meant to be seen, then that can lead to a
> lot of misidentification of varieties, a problem already.  Why make it
> worse.
>
> OK, so you get a high quality image of an iris from film (John did not
> mention variations in film) and when it is scanned in it makes a 30MB .TIF
> file. Of course, if you convert it to a .JPG file, and compress it to
> 300KB, you have already lost a lot of the image information.  On a CD, that
> means you have increased your number of images from about 21 to about 2167.
> However, now you are beginning to have problems. The blue in the .TIF may
> not exactly match the blue in the .JPG, mainly because of the loosy
> compression. Add to that the difference in video cards and monitors and the
> way they process colors, and one iris could look to have the same exact
> blue as a different one does in real life. Any manipulation you do with the
> original file will result in changes to the colors in the file, whether or
> not it is perceptible will depend on the person looking at it and the
> amount of change (see below).
>
> While it is true that one can do calibrations to make the colors look the
> same from video card/monitor to video card/monitor, the process is not easy
> and rather technical, so you know that people will not be doing that.
>
> Colors are funny, too. People do not perceive color in the same way.  In a
> fer instance, The back of my house is one shade and the front is another
> shade of the same color. Now, most people think I am nuts, by my sweet
> other half also saw the difference on her own. (Neither of us works much
> with colors any more, but between us, we have over 30 years of experience
> with color, she in printing, and me in coatings.) We have to live with it,
> because we could not get the painters to see it, nor could we get the
> contractor in charge to see it.
>
> I don't know how much you have seen of the discussions here of the database
> that is being worked on now, but it is a very labor intensive task, with a
> lot of checking and rechecking to make sure the information is correct. 
> The AIS is making the steps into the 21st century, but they are doing it
> cautiously, and attempting to make sure it is done right.
>
> From your address tag, I see that you live in an area where there is a lot
> of technology available, and people are using it. Same here. However, when
> I go back home, I get a dose of reality. Most of my friends do not own a
> computer. Those that do, don't use them often. We get a lot of questions
> about our cell phones, and people don't believe that we cannot live without
> them. In this area, everyone I know has at least one computer. However,
> their ability to use them varies all over the map, from novice level to
> expert level. It is unknown how the membership of the AIS fits into this
> schema, but it would probably be safe to say that the membership follows
> the general population with regard to computer savvy. This must also be
> taken into account.
>
> \\Steve//
> Northern VA, Zone 6/7
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bobby Baxter - Wake Forest, NC [i*@daylily.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:38 PM
> To: Iris Talk
> Subject: Re: [iris-talk] HYB:AIS:Checklist
>
>
> The following comments are from John Jones explaining why including images
> on any possible Electronic Checklist CD-rom is a bad idea:
>
> John Jones writes:
>
> ============
> "Well that would definitely make the files bigger. My personal opinion...
> Until video technology provides a good way to calibrate the various
> monitors so that a picture looks the same way on evryone, pictures are not
> a good idea, thought it has been in my mind since the beginning of the
> project. (soap box time)
>
> There are multiple problems with pictures:
>
> Taking the picture (with either a conventional camera and scanning it, or
> with a digital camera):
>
> --Exposures can be way off (shadows, time of day type of light) Different
> films impart different hues etc
> --Digitizing has its own color accuracy issues, and each scanner is
> different.
> --Level of compression injects some inaccuracy
> --Every monitor is different (unless you have *very* expensive ones) I have
> two identical 21 inch color monitors that I use for work (and play).
> Because I have two different interfaces, pictures look very different on
> each of them. True that could be mitigated, but I would still have to
> calibrate them to a standard.
>
> The problem is that too many folks want to look at a picture on a screen
> and compare it (by memory most often) to a bloom they saw in their
> garden (minutes, hours, weeks ago) and say "Oh that must be Frazzeled
> Glory" (or something).
>
> Not a good idea (unless of course you have a limited list of names it might
> be and they are all significantly differentiated)
>
> (end of soap box)"
> =============
>
> I thought we defeated communism in this Country but I see it is alive and
> well within AIS when John Jones writes, "Until video technology provides a
> good way to calibrate the various monitors so that a picture looks the same
> way on evryone, pictures are not a good idea,..."  Why does everyone have
> to have the exact same quality of image on their computer monitor?  If this
> is your standard, then it will be impossible to achieve and you should turn
> the project over to someone who will put a CD in the hands of the AIS
> membership this century.
>
> Of course, first you need an Electronic Checklist CD-rom, then you can
> provide pictures.  Since you are now discussing pictures on a CD-rom, do
> you have a realistic date for delivery of the initial product?
>
> This post is supposed to be about your picture comments...sorry for my
> drifting.
>
> I do not understand your arguments about the images.  Size of the images is
> really unimportant unless they are are to be used on the web and if so then
> compressed high quality, sharp images are very possible using a simple
> graphics program like Macromedia Fireworks to prepare them.  A self
> contained program for viewing the database could be loaded onto the user's
> harddrive and then the image library could be accessed from one of more
> CD's that contain only the images.  This really isn't a problem and can be
> done with quite a few programs such as Visual Basic, Access, FoxPro or even
> with some of the really high end programming languages.  I bet if you were
> to explore contracting the services for AIS then you would be surprised by
> some of the low bids you would receive and how soon it could be
> accomplished. There are people right on Iris Talk and many more within AIS
> that are more than capable and willing to do a worthwhile project if it is
> planned appropriately.  The notion of recovering the cost for printed books
> before even releasing the CD product should not even be a consideration.
>
> The longer AIS waits to enter the digital and electronic arena, the longer
> a disservice is being done to the AIS membership because these are all
> commonalities in today's world.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Bobby Baxter
> Wake Forest, NC
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.394 / Virus Database: 224 - Release Date: 10/3/2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- 
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
My words are mine, and don't reflect the views of my employer.
Catherine Button    Network Administrator    cathy@pavcal.com
          Phone: 609-518-3700 x4444          Fax: 609-518-3720

 "When I drop in my tracks, I want the body to skid for a week."
  cathy@gixxergirl.org           http://www.gixxergirl.org/
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index