Re: [PanoToolsNG] HTML5 - the true tragedy
- These web standards are open, reliable, highly secure, and efficient.
The above is a quote from the Apple site. IF the examples are the best
possible scenarios done with HTML5, then it is a real pitty. The only
conclusion I can come to, is that they wanted a panorama to work in a
similar way as QTVR... and they even failed at matching that sub-standard of
But worry not... this will be the standard for the next 13 or so years. No
matter how open source it is... it's not going to be improved just because
you find a flaw or a lacking feature. It's going to stay the way it is
until HTML6 comes out in 2023.
Welcome to the free open source standards.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Im jumping in on the tail-end of the conversation but .. I use the Digimarc
( https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/images/ ) digital watermarking service
when Im worried about image theft. I havent tried it yet with panos but
Ill bet it works just the same. Embed the code into one of the cube faces.
If someone appropriates the pano and post it online the service can search
the web for your images and notify you where they are being used. You can
even use their partner LicenseStream to do the dirty work (send
notifications of copyright violations, etc..).
The annual fee for the service may be considered expensive by some but for
me its worth it. I started using it years ago within weeks I discovered
that a former customer took some of my elevated photography work and was
reselling the images as stock photography online. I contacted the perp and
the stock photo company and was rewarded with a check ! I didnt get rich
with that check, but it did supply me with enough cash to cover several
years of the Digimarc service.
Ill be buying Pano Cocoon shortly.
>>On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Ian Wood <panolists@...<mailto:panolists%40azurevision.co.uk> >wrote:
> >On 6 Jun 2010, at 12:33, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
>> The VAST majority of professional photographers do exactly that. Go
>> look at big names like Magnum (standard JPEGs shown via Flash) or
>> Rankin (not even Flash just HTML) and you'll be hard-pressed to find
>> encrypted images in general use.
>Ian, Magnum´s "standard JPEGs" wheter delivered via flash or plain HTML are
>all branded. Just like many photographers brand the images in their
>portfolio in some way or other. And most agencies that I know of do
>likewise. Also, Magnum showcases mostly low resolution, highly compressed
>images, like this example http://bit.ly/9brZMX . It points to a legit
>page, but with an extremely long and likely to become broken URL; So the--
>paranoids can relax... wait, no they can´t, and hence their paranoia ;)
>The point is that no, Magnum and most others that profit from the sales of
>their works (graphically, at least) do not "put their images online in a
>completely unsafe format".
>If that is done in a "disruptive" manner or not is a whole different story.
>Isaac García[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]