bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : Re: Is there such a thing as the "master copy" of a book? The process for movies and music is pretty well-known and thoroughly documented on Wikipedia. You shoot a movie, edit it and then you - selfpublishingguru.com

10% popularity

Do books need master copies? Do we still need master copies?

The answer to both questions is yes. Even though the original copy of a book might be digital, it still needs a master copy.

For one thing, digital degrades. It might not happen as fast as with physical copies, but images degrade as they get copied (one of the downsides of image compression tech). Also, errors (formatting, spelling, and extraneous) are introduced into text as it is copied more and more.

And even if digital didn't suffer from degradation, you should still have a master (or archival) copy. It's not a good idea to assume that you will always be able to find a good quality copy in the future should you need to create a new edition. Chances are it will be a degraded copy with lower quality images and other issues introduced in the conversion process

What should that master copy contain?

In my opinion: Everything.

I would archive everything from the original source documents and images to the intermediate file formats and including whatever preferred archival file format is common at the moment. Don't forget to also include any material discarded from the published book; it could prove useful in a future edition.


Load Full (0)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @Berryessa137

0 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

Back to top