Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: QTVR is NOT dead- first experiences with the new QT on MacOS 10.6

Expand Messages
  • yuval_levy
    ... ... this should be everybody s
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
      > I don't believe it is official. Has anyone seen an announcement or
      > even footnote from Apple regarding this?

      <http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/QuickTime/InsideQT_QTVR/7Chap/7-QTVR-atoms-file-format.html>


      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Willy Kaemena <panokaemena@...> wrote:
      > my concern was whether all our legacy QTVR content developed in the
      > last 10 years, would be suddenly unplayable and worthless

      this should be everybody's concern. and is an example why closed, proprietary standards are a risk. What if Microsoft decided to drop support for the .XLS format, or if Adobe decided to drop support for the PSD format?

      If anybody still has Betamax tapes, they know what I mean. In software this can and should be avoided.


      > And I dont like to speak of the death of QTVR but would prefer the
      > term "retirement"

      Right, like "life insurance".

      "Retirement" was when active development stopped, years ago. In human terms it is that period of life when you stop working for somebody else and you "work" for your own enjoyment.

      And in human terms at some point we all start to face the consequences of aging and see the doctor and the hospitals for some fixes. Despite all medical attempts we progressively loose functionality until the inevitable consequence of death.

      QuickTime has already lost plenty of functionality that has not been restored (embedded flash anybody?) and is dying a slow death instead of being "decommissioned" - human equivalent: "euthanasia", still illegal in most parts of the world because we like to torture ourselves and extend life beyond shelf date.

      Sorry for my bluntness. It's time for a QTVR museum. Collect as much as possible of these wonderful creations of mankind; collect the file format specifications and whatever is available of the software; try to preserve access, in the hope that the collection will inspire future generations.

      One source of inspiration is http://www.videolan.org/ - there is now experimental code in their repository to play basic QTVR. If Apple would release the QTVR code under an Open Source license, the users could update the functionality in VLC and help extending the useful life of QTVR content, maybe indefinitely.

      Yuv

      Yuv
    • Keith Martin
      ... Damn. Looks like Apple signed the death warrant for quite a few things recently, judging by the list of QT-based things marked as Legacy on June 1st. RIP,
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Sometime around 30/8/09 (at 13:08 +0000) yuval_levy said:

        ><http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/QuickTime/InsideQT_QTVR/7Chap/7-QTVR-atoms-file-format.html>

        Damn. Looks like Apple signed the death warrant for quite a few
        things recently, judging by the list of QT-based things marked as
        Legacy on June 1st.

        RIP, QTVR.

        k
      • Sacha Griffin
        Well if its online qtvr, playback is already supported by a slew of flash players by swapping out some lines of html etc. I wonder if the flash mov plugins
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 30, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Well if its online qtvr, playback is already supported by a slew of flash
          players by swapping out some lines of html etc.

          I wonder if the flash mov plugins fail completely on strange qtvrs or merely
          do basic functions.

          If it's especially weird qtvr, with a GUI, which is extremely rare, then
          someone would need to decide if it's worth the time to re-author it in
          flash.

          From my initial research into qtvr customization I thought it was a very
          expensive headache and probably re-author these guis ten times faster in
          flash that you initially did in quicktime.





          Sacha Griffin

          Southern Digital Solutions LLC

          http://www.southern-digital.com

          http://www.seeit360.net

          GMAIL IM: sachagriffin007@...

          404-551-4275







          From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Willy Kaemena
          Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:34 AM
          To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] QTVR is NOT dead- first experiences with the new
          QT on MacOS 10.6





          Trausti
          thank you for your thoughts

          Sure there is no doubt about the future of panoramas in flash, but my
          concern was whether all our legacy QTVR content developed in the last
          10 years, would be suddenly unplayable and worthless under MACOS 10.6
          with QuicktimeX and that is luckily not the case.

          And I dont like to speak of the death of QTVR but would prefer the
          term "retirement"

          Willy

          On Aug 30, 2009, at 12:07, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

          > Hi Willy.
          >
          > Yes, with SnowLeopard things are still working, but the run is over
          > for
          > QTVR. The program as it existed (ok... still exists) had not been
          > maintained, and with this move of Apple, it is clear they have
          > completely
          > dropped it from development. QT still exists, but that too is a
          > questionable success... just like RealPlayer... it used to be
          > amongst the
          > big guys in multimedia players, but now it is all but gone. QT panos
          > can
          > still be viewed in coming times, by those who have installed the
          > 20+mb QT
          > installation file. We try to keep our panos within a reasonable size
          > (less
          > than 4mb), so that potential viewing audience will not get sick and
          > tired of
          > waiting and move away, and the QT installation is 20mb, plus the
          > additional
          > clicking and installation procedure. That is NOT something that the
          > average
          > internet audience is willing to be put through... and I am pretty
          > sure that
          > it's also one of the main reasons for Apple dropping the apple on
          > QTVR.
          > Flash is (for now) the way forward, with less than 2 mb download and
          > an
          > automated install on IE, and a semi-auto on FF. That is ACCEPTABLE for
          > potential viewers, and most of them already have Flash installed, so
          > they
          > won't have to make a big change in plans just to get to see a
          > panorama they
          > have been recommended, or come across.
          >
          > On those terms, and unless QT will be making some huge evolutionary
          > changes,
          > it is dead... It will take some time before QTVR content will be
          > gone (or
          > useless) from the internet scene.... maybe 10 years... but as things
          > look
          > now, it makes no sense at all to produce QTVR material.
          > Oops... It just dawned on me that the death of QTVR is a potential
          > gain for
          > me and other Flash based panorama providers... damn I'm thick... I
          > better
          > stop writing this QTVR mortuary before some extremists accuse me of
          > trying
          > to gain something from the death of it. I didn't even realize that
          > potential gain of clients until now. But for those who don't know
          > me: I may
          > be providing a specific product, but that does not make me into some
          > "company". I am still an individual, and when I speak out/type, I do
          > so on
          > the terms of being an individual, and not as a "team" or a "company"
          > or
          > someone dedicated to telling only one side of a story... even though
          > my
          > story may BE one sided in the eyes of others. I reserve the right to
          > speak
          > for myself and air my private and personal opinions.
          >
          > I say this, after having been told that I "should not speak out" in
          > this or
          > that manner. People express them individually. We all have our own
          > views
          > and opinions (unless we have been brainwashed and given a certain
          > (sub)standard mindset to act by.
          >
          > Anyways... QTVR is out of the race. The most recent QTVR examples I
          > have
          > seen, are terribly stiff and "oh so last millennium" in look and
          > feel, that
          > I am amazed that the format has survived this long.
          >
          > Equally, I can say that it is amazing that Flash and Java based
          > players are
          > still used, when compared to the extremely smooth and nice SPi-V
          > engine. In
          > quality and feel, Flash and Java have NO way of surviving the
          > comparison.
          > But market share and platform availability is a fact of life... and
          > that
          > puts Flash on top of the pile. Deserved or not... QTVR is out and
          > Flash is
          > in. Java is on the way out and Silverlight is hoping to get in...
          > and HTMLVR
          > may be the way forward, without having entered the scene.
          >
          > All of that being said (lots of rant), I have to "confess" that it was
          > indeed QTVR panoramas that caught my interest in the field of panos. A
          > friend of mine worked as a panographer, and his works were fantastic,
          > compared to any and all normal photos. After adoring his works for
          > months,
          > I decided to jump into the same field, and that was it. So QTVR has
          > absolutely affected my life, and I wouldn't be where I am today, if
          > QTVR
          > hadn't been there to impress me in the first place. So I do absolutely
          > appreciate QTVR for what it was and for what it got going... but
          > unfortunately it became a dinosaur in it's own field, and that is what
          > brought it down.
          >
          > Rest in peace, and rest with respect... but don't come back, unless
          > you have
          > something really nice to offer!
          >
          > Sorry about your Apple Laser Writer not working... but there must be
          > some
          > bright people out there, who will make a resurrection driver pack
          > for it.
          >
          > This may be of some help: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3669
          >
          > But coming weeks and months will surely provide real solutions. I
          > still
          > remember how NOTHING worked for me back in 1995.... September
          > 27th... when
          > Win95 was released for the first time in Denmark... well, that was
          > the day I
          > got it anyways... and all my music software, for making music,
          > didn't work.
          > NOTHING worked for me. On the official box of Win95, they had the
          > nerve to
          > print: "Everything you have used in Windows 3.1 and 3.11 will
          > continue to
          > work in Windows95"... and when nothing worked for me, and I called MS
          > support in Denmark, I was told that I had to contacct the producers
          > of the
          > software that was not working... and no matter how much I pointed
          > out THEIR
          > claims of EVERYTHING from earlier versions working..... they just
          > brushed me
          > off.
          >
          > So there isn't much respect left for MS...and in that context, I can
          > understand the negative feeling towards Apple for dropping QTVR
          > officially... but these htings happen, and one day we will have a
          > global
          > drop on everything made in 32bit applications... and that will be
          > "disastrous" for everyone with today's mindset.
          >
          > We just have to accept "survival of the fittest"... and not the
          > "creationist" theory. Flash survives (for now), not because it is
          > the best,
          > but because it fits in better than the rest. QTVR was the
          > "creation"... and
          > now it's dead and gone.
          >
          > So is my rant.
          >
          > Trausti
          >
          > http://flashificator.com
          >
          > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Willy Kaemena <panokaemena@...
          <mailto:panokaemena%40mac.com> >
          > wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > Here some first experiences with QTVR on the new MacOS 10.6 with the
          > > new Quicktime and related issues.
          > >
          > > Almost everything works like before!!
          > >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ken Warner
          QT will not run on my Vista 64 machine. I installed the latest version and all I get is the skin with a big transparent hole in it.
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 30, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            QT will not run on my Vista 64 machine. I installed the latest version
            and all I get is
            the skin with a big transparent hole in it.

            Keith Martin wrote:
            > Sometime around 30/8/09 (at 13:08 +0000) yuval_levy said:
            >
            >
            >> <http://developer.apple.com/legacy/mac/library/documentation/QuickTime/InsideQT_QTVR/7Chap/7-QTVR-atoms-file-format.html>
            >>
            >
            > Damn. Looks like Apple signed the death warrant for quite a few
            > things recently, judging by the list of QT-based things marked as
            > Legacy on June 1st.
            >
            > RIP, QTVR.
            >
            > k
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.