Re: [PanoToolsNG] HTML5 - the true tragedy
- On 06/04/2010 06:46 AM, blueslander wrote:
> http://www.apple.com/html5/the fact that apple coded their demo to only work with safari, limiting
> If you are not running on Safari, don't bother clicking the link
themselves to the features they decided on, after doing their 800 pound
gorilla to prevent a standard video Codec to be decided on in the spec
(theora, dirac, whatever) does not show the possibilities that html5
> This is HTML5 showcase site...This is *APPLE*'s showcase site, that specifically tests for "is the
user using safari or whatever else"...
> Maybe Adobe should sue all those who try to imitate the Flash capabilities?That would be like wirlpool suing someong for inventing yet another
version of the fridge or the washing machine...
if http://smokescreen.us/ can write a pretty good flash player in
so, you sir are a troll of the worst type spewing pro-flash slander...
- 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]