Posted 24 September 2005 - 02:53 PM
Todd has some outstanding pictures that are at a higher resolution than those in the Bible Lands Photoguide or the Biblical World in Pictures from BAR.
Those in the current Accordance modules are mostly in a pict format, presumably to ensure backward compatibility. Todd's are in a jpeg format that is more commonly used today.
OakTree could even consider offering Todd's photos on a DVD (in addition to CDs) because of the large size of higher resolution photos.
Posted 26 September 2005 - 06:04 PM
We can certainly look into the possibility of creating an Accordance module which would feature the Bible Places photographs and annotations. Have you suggested the same to Mr. Bolen?
I'm not sure I understand your point about PICT versus JPEG. The photos in the Bible Lands PhotoGuide are jpeg compressed. When you copy a picture from Accordance, it is copied to the clipboard as a PICT, but it retains its compression. You can always use a Graphics program like GraphicConverter to convert to JPEG or any other graphics format you like, so I fail to see how one is more advantageous than the other.
We're actually working right now on an update to the PhotoGuide which will include hundreds of additional photographs. We are also increasing the resolution of many of the pictures. They're still shy of the 1200 by 1600 of the Bible Places photos, but they're close. Our goal with the PhotoGuide is to provide an affordable, high-quality reference work and teaching tool. We aim for a resolution which is suitable for projecting in a church or classroom, but not necessarily for creating large printouts.
Feet to Follow, Eyes to See
Macs in the Ministry
Leader of the "Lang Gang"
Posted 02 October 2005 - 02:24 AM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 11:47 AM
Todd Bolen mentioned that there is not enough interest by Accordance for this. I would make a poll to find this out for Accordance, but there is no polling feature.
This would be a great module to have for Accordance.
Posted 10 April 2007 - 05:29 PM
Interesting that Mr. Bolen does not list Accordance's PhotoGuide as a "competitor" on his web page. As a Mac and Accordance user, it strikes me as a snub.
The PhotoGuide more keenly fits into a Bible research tool such as Accordance in the way it includes scholarly work that accompanies the photos.
I'm actually hard-pressed to come up with a need for Mr. Bolen's collection not met by the PhotoGuide other than for licensing use of the photos in publishing a book. The scope of it strikes me as over-kill for anything but the most niche university/seminary classroom instruction. However, it's always nice to have a "cream of the crop" photo collection out there for those who would need it.
Edited by Joe Weaks, 10 April 2007 - 05:34 PM.
The Macintosh Biblioblog
Sometimes I'm so helpful even I can't stand it.
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:52 AM
The annotations in the Todd Bolen's collection are very good and does contribute to scholarly research on them.
But I do see your point, and that is why I suggested perhaps some usage of it in the photoguide. He has some pictures of places that are lacking pictures in the photoguide. Possibly adding those, along with some of his annotations may be a good addition.
Of course this may be a moot point. Perhaps Roy Brown and David Lang are slowly taking more pictures of their own to fill in any blank for the photoguide.
Posted 17 April 2007 - 01:28 AM
1) I wrote that review several years ago and have not had time to make any significant updates.
2) It is a Mac product. I do not use Mac and therefore cannot evaluate the product very well.
3) Available products for Mac are so few (compared to PC) that anyone in this field who uses a Mac is aware of the offerings, so it is not as necessary for me to inform them.
I once had a chance to view briefly the PhotoGuide and I was impressed. There are differences between that and the Pictorial Library, but the PhotoGuide is much better than most similar products available for PC.
Posted 17 April 2007 - 10:27 PM
Joe - the lack of inclusion in the "competition" page was not a snub.
I'm sure you know that Mac users, being hypersensitive often to such issues, do perceive such sins of omission as a snub. I'm not sure your argument that you leave PhotoGuide out since you don't have a Mac to test it one holds up, since you also make comments about peecee apps that you weren't able to run. But, being out dated is understandable.
Many web page have these cob web pages as part of its content-- most do. I would suggest though that you date the review page and state as much. Your competition review page however makes the opposite claim with this invitation:
"Know of any other options, good or bad? Please tell us!"
You can understand how that seems to imply that this is something you keep up to date.
Hope that helps,
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users