There is a trend in digital preservation circles to question the need for migration.
Some time ago Will Palmer, Peter May and Peter Cliff of the British Library published a really interesting paper that investigated three different JPEG 2000 codecs, and their effects on image quality in response to lossy compression. Most remarkably, their analysis revealed differences not only in the way these codecs encode (compress) an image, but also in the decoding phase. In other words: reading the same lossy JP2 produced different results depending on which implementation was used to decode it.
A limitation of the paper's methodology is that it obscures the individual effects of the encoding and decoding components, since both are essentially lumped in the analysis. Thus, it's not clear how much of the observed degradation in image quality is caused by the compression, and how much by the decoding. This made me wonder how similar the decode results of different codecs really are.
Now that we are entering the final days of the SCAPE project, we would like to highlight some SCAPE Quality Assurance tools that have an online demonstrator.
It is difficult to write that headline. After nearly four years of hard work, worry, setbacks, triumphs, weariness, and exultation, the SCAPE project is finally coming to an end.
I am convinced that I will look back at this period as one of the highlights of my career. I hope that many of my SCAPE colleagues will feel the same way.
I believe SCAPE was an outstanding example of a successful European project, characterised by