- On 6-3-2010 9:46 PM, blueslander s hamster got loose on the keyboard and ... It doesn t work in Safari running in Win 7 Ultimate x64. The VR section tells me:Message 1 of 43 , Jun 3, 2010View SourceOn 6-3-2010 9:46 PM, blueslander's hamster got loose on the keyboard and
> http://www.apple.com/html5/It doesn't work in Safari running in Win 7 Ultimate x64. The VR section
> If you are not running on Safari,
. This demo requires a browser that supports CSS 3D transforms.
. To view this demo, you'll need Safari on Mac OS X Snow
Leopard, Safari on iPhone OS, or the latest WebKit Nightly Build.
In Safari running in XP Pro the page can't be found and it always
changes the "html" in the URL to uppecase.
So let me get this straight, I have to buy a Mac or an iPhone to use the
new standard? Doesn't seem like much of a "standard" to me ... unless
I've got Apple hardware.
> don't bother clicking the link, since it won't work on any otherPat Swovelin
> browser. That's how good HTML5 really is today.
> Anyways, should you happen to have Safari, you can see an example of
> object movie. Very basic, very basic and very basic.... did I say basic?
> And you can also see an example of a spherical panorama that looks and
> feels like something from last century.
> This is HTML5 showcase site... and everything in it happens to be a
> BAD imitation of what is possible to do with Flash. They have
> obviously worked hard towards making things look as good as possible,
> in order to "impress" people, but the results are less than mediocre.
> It's good that HTML4 will be replaced by HTML5... after 13 or 14
> years... with only 3 updates in that timeframe... but this also proves
> that Flash will be alive and well for many years to come, while HTML5
> will just stay in one place, and not evolve at all... for the next decade.
> That is what history proves to us all.
> Maybe Adobe should sue all those who try to imitate the Flash
> capabilities? That would be in the spirit of Apple, so how wrong could
> that be?
> Just thinking out loud.
Cool Guy @ Large
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I’m jumping in on the tail-end of the conversation but….. I use the Digimarc ( https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/images/ ) digital watermarking serviceMessage 43 of 43 , Jun 9, 2010View SourceIm 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]