[REBOL] Re: Image processing and embedding metadata in images?
From: jasonic:panix at: 12-Nov-2001 17:02
Hi Ryan
> I would rethink the whole approach. Data can be imprinted on gif, jpeg,
png,
> and bmp, and saved as a png or bmp using /View very easily, but forget
about
> swf. Could be done like so:
>
> save/png %out.png to-image layout [image %image.jpg text "Posted by Ryan
Cole"]
Thanks for your comments..
Yes REBOL's to-image layout is a handy feature :-)
And you nmay be right that I am on the wrong track. Let me explain better.
Pro: Surprinting is handy for some things like overt copyright [Associated
Press use it often on the web].
Con: But really messy for others, especially where images must be 'clean'
and usable for various media composition or output. It is innefieicent and
they can not be edited. Privacy/Transparency are issues too.
SWF is *not* the problem. Easy to include all kinds of metadata or smart
behaviors in Flash files. That's partly what got me started again on this.
There is a superb tool called jpeg2swf
http://wahlers.de/webcam.html
It only creates a minimal SWF version of JPEG images, but the beauty is one
can add all sorts of other infromation, and features as soon as it is
converted to SWF without changing the name etc.
Forever one must take images and need to attach/associete meta-data. This is
for archival, linking, and workflow reasons. Some typical examples round
here:
1. Original Source File Name problems
1.a may be part of a big sequence like: "a1b_spider_0029.JPG"
That is meaningful name given an image for one applcation, which is not
helpful in another. By renaming it I 'lose' the ability to return
1.b worse it may one of zillion sequenced video/digital still captures:
PFP000125489.JPG
2. Timestamping and GeoReferencing
Most photos objects people have several implicit geo-referenced metadata
attributes which are lost or thrown away becuase there are sensible means to
embed them. Every photo video image was taken somewhere at some time unless
it was generated entrirely artifically or has been composited beyond
tangible reality.
New photos are especially sensitive to this.
3. Contextual Renaming
There are many reason why one wants to rename images.
3.a http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en is one
3.b web-site or multimedia content management programming is another
3.c .. oh yeah people!
4. Captions
Many images benefit from captions in addition to decent titles. Filenames
whcih are not meaningful directly for people, mean more work and more
questions. They also tend to cancel out automated backgound tools. Captions
are a powerful tool which have been around esential since the publishing
explosion 500 year ago. I find it very very strange that digital image
formats have negelected these needs.
5. Authors
6. Hyperlinks
useful for dynamic metadata, registration, search, archiving, smaller files.
7. Rights and permsissions
8. Workflow & Groupware functionality
This is main reason I am pursuing this. I know how much time and effort it
is to go 'back' and dig up infromation or pass it along with images. This is
unlike almost any other media you can thing of: books, printing, film,
video, music, sodacans and clothing... They ALL keep embed some metadata
with the medium. Why not Images? Often times skills people equipment tools
are wise in scope. Keeping basic things together aids workflow, especially
in any distributed scheme.
making simple things simple..
9. Other Cool Stuff
urls to REBOL image processing functions
urls to Vanilla snips
10. *errorism and ilk
LOL! sigh yes anything'r'possible{tm}, but is a lot like 5 years ago when
ignorant people publicly focused on Internet Porn and thus gave it lotta
free global publicity.
> Generally though, I recommend referencing the metadata to the image, which
> makes much more sense.
Why?
regards
- Jason
