Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Unmodifiable Image Format - is there such a thing?

Reply
Thread Tools

Unmodifiable Image Format - is there such a thing?

 
 
August
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as conventional
chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately, case-by-case, we only
process a dozen, or two at most, images so it is not cost effective to
burn each session to a CD-R. We need a way to store them in a "safe"
format until enough are gathered to burn them.
Any ideas?
If possible, please respond off-group to http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

Thanks so much,
August
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JackD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
With CD-R available for something like $0.30 a disk that works out to less
than 2 cents an image given the number of images you are taking about. It
would cost more in labor to create the file and then later burn it to CD
than it would to just burn to CD to begin with.

-Jack

"August" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
> would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
> photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
> cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as conventional
> chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately, case-by-case, we only
> process a dozen, or two at most, images so it is not cost effective to
> burn each session to a CD-R. We need a way to store them in a "safe"
> format until enough are gathered to burn them.
> Any ideas?
> If possible, please respond off-group to (E-Mail Removed)
>
> Thanks so much,
> August



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
August wrote:
> Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
> would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
> photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
> cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as conventional
> chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately, case-by-case, we only
> process a dozen, or two at most, images so it is not cost effective to
> burn each session to a CD-R. We need a way to store them in a "safe"
> format until enough are gathered to burn them.


CDR in bulk are like a dime a piece. That's too expensive?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
On 11 Sep 2003 17:20:30 -0700, in rec.photo.digital (E-Mail Removed)
(August) wrote:

>Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF?


Hate to tell you that this view of PDF is sadly uninformed. PDF protection
is a joke propagated by Adobe. Ghostscript and other freely and widely
available tools can be used to defeat Adobe's "protection" in a matter of
seconds.

>If possible, please respond off-group to (E-Mail Removed)


No, you ask a question on usenet, you get a reply on usenet. Don't want
that, then don't come here.
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
http://members.cox.net/egruf
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jason O'Rourke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
August <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
>would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
>photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
>cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as conventional
>chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately, case-by-case, we only
>process a dozen, or two at most, images so it is not cost effective to
>burn each session to a CD-R. We need a way to store them in a "safe"
>format until enough are gathered to burn them.
>Any ideas?


Watermarking might give you some sort of protection, but if you're worried
about the costs of cd-rs, no point even looking into if it could serve that
function.

Oh, wait, what about those strange cd-rW things?

Honestly, you're pinching the wrong pennies if the process needs to be
tight.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adam R
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
Use PGP to apply a digital signature to the JPEGs. Then when it comes time
to present them as evidence, re-verify the signature.

So long as the security of the signing key is not compromised, you have no
problem. For additional defence-lawyer-proofness, you could sign with
multiple keys, with separate individuals responsible for the keys.

AdamR
www.rosner.net.nz/adam

ps agree with the sentiment: Ask a question on usenet, get a reply on
usenet. This is a non-commercial, non-proprietary forum with the goal of
sharing knowledge.
end of rant.

"Jason O'Rourke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bjr5k1$127b$(E-Mail Removed)...
> August <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
> >would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
> >photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
> >cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as conventional
> >chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately, case-by-case, we only
> >process a dozen, or two at most, images so it is not cost effective to
> >burn each session to a CD-R. We need a way to store them in a "safe"
> >format until enough are gathered to burn them.
> >Any ideas?

>
> Watermarking might give you some sort of protection, but if you're worried
> about the costs of cd-rs, no point even looking into if it could serve

that
> function.
>
> Oh, wait, what about those strange cd-rW things?
>
> Honestly, you're pinching the wrong pennies if the process needs to be
> tight.
>
> --
> Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com



 
Reply With Quote
 
Frankhartx
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
>Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
>would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
>photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
>cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as


The only way is to encrypt the files-the format is not the problem nor the
answer. Encryption provides security and there are levels of encryption
available that would stymie even the NSA
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stanley Krute
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
It seems you'd have to have some sort of documentation
that certified that the image had gone directly from the
camera to an encrypted format to a CD. The biggest
cost will be the documentation, I imagine -- some sort
of notary-public-equivalent-witness with technical expertise to
witness the process and sign off on it. Or a pair of same.
The witness would need technical expertise so that
some geek wouldn't be playing flim-flam games with
the imagery.

Myself, if I were a judge, haha that ain't ever gonna
happen in this lifetime, but if I were, I wouldn't trust
pictures of anything anymore.




 
Reply With Quote
 
PlaneGuy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
I believe that Canon has an optional accessory on one (or maybe more) of
their DSLRs that uses cryptographic techniques to digitally sign the images
created with the camera. I think it is either the 1D or 1Ds.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003
August wrote:
> Is there such a format for images that is equivalent to a .PDF? We
> would like to switch to digital photography for our chain-of-custody
> photographs but our SOP states that the negatives (digital or not)
> cannot be modified in any way- view and view only such as
> conventional chemical photography negatives. Unfortunately,
> case-by-case, we only process a dozen, or two at most, images so it
> is not cost effective to burn each session to a CD-R.


Surely burning a dozen images to a 50c CD-R is more cost effective than
buying, developing and printing a roll of 35mm film?

And surely a mostly empty CD-R is no more expensive to store than a
packet of prints and developed negatives?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unmodifiable ResultSet wrapper? Ian Pilcher Java 3 09-03-2011 07:59 AM
Sync. List or Unmodifiable List - better way. Laax Java 2 01-18-2005 01:10 AM
Re: Make Array Unmodifiable? Roedy Green Java 24 06-03-2004 10:49 PM
Re: Make Array Unmodifiable? Rune Berge Java 1 05-31-2004 09:25 PM
Re: Make Array Unmodifiable? P.Hill Java 1 05-31-2004 03:06 PM



Advertisments