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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: HTML5 - the true tragedy

Expand Messages
  • AYRTON
    Eric I couldn t agree more with you ! best AYRTON ... -- ... + 55 21 9982 6313 - RIO + 55 11 3717 5131 - SP http://ayrton360.com twitter.com/ayrton360
    Message 1 of 43 , Jun 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric I couldn't agree more with you !

      best
      AYRTON

      On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Eric O'Brien <ericob@...>wrote:

      > If you are saying that standards committees rarely are sources of
      > innovation, I would agree.
      >
      > But, exactly because of that, neither do standards committees
      > determine product features or the deployment schedule for those
      > products.
      >
      > I consider it fallacious to link the HTML5 standards timeline to the
      > timeline of the development of products that may implement some or all
      > of the (proposed) HTML5 standards. The standards committees are not
      > "gatekeepers." A couple similar examples I can think of are standards
      > for telephone modems and those for wi-fi. As times began changing
      > more quickly in the world of telephone modems, manufacturers designed,
      > built, promoted and sold devices based on *draft* standards. In the
      > wireless arena, the same thing happened with 802.11n.
      >
      > It most certainly is NOT the case that we will have to wait until
      > "2022" [1] before we will see HTML5 features implemented in everyday
      > browsers (not ones that are "special builds.")
      >
      > If you look at <http://html5readiness.com/> (a very nice information
      > graphic, by the way) or <http://caniuse.com/> from where the data
      > originated, you can see that a number of HTML5 features are available
      > *now* in various browsers. Microsoft's product being the laggard
      > (sigh). I found it particularly interesting, in the first url, to
      > click on the previous years and see how much as changed in two or
      > three years.
      >
      >
      > Next. Note that it is not *Flash* that allows us to build interactive
      > panoramas, or to package together groups of panoramas into "tours."
      > Flash is a foundation. Without Pano2VR, or krpano or Flash Panorama
      > Player (and others?) there would be few, if any, interactive panoramas
      > deployed as Flash "movies."
      >
      > Remember that when the iPad arrived, there were essentially *no*
      > panoramas that could be viewed using it. After weeks of presumably
      > really hard work, Brian Greenstone <http://pangeasoft.net/pano/
      > pangeavr/> changed that. No, this is not yet multi-pano "tour." And
      > yes, the holy grail of "author once, deploy everywhere" again recedes
      > into the mist. But you *can* view spherical panoramas interactively
      > on an iPad or iPhone WITHOUT, yes without, using Flash.
      >
      > Clearly, ugly though it might be, the "technology demonstration" at
      > Apple's site shows that it *is* possible to display interactive
      > panoramas using HTML5 "technology."
      >
      > I don't consider it a valid criticism to complain that there isn't yet
      > the equivalent of Pano2VR et al that will generate a lump of HTML5
      > stuff rather than a lump of Flash stuff. I don't know if it will be
      > possible (and oh my, look at <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/>!) for
      > "HTML5 stuff" to present a final user experience that is on par with
      > the final user experience you might be able to create using Flash
      > tools. However, what with Apple's stance on Flash, I'd be surprised
      > if the authors of Pano2VR, krpano and so forth aren't investigating
      > whether it can be done.
      >
      > And if they are, dare I say that they would *not* be if it were not
      > for the stance of Apple? I think that Apple (Steve Jobs) has been
      > motivated more by emotion than pragmatism regarding shutting out
      > Flash, but recall that Apple has taken similar positions in the past.
      > Remember floppy disks? Apple did not "phase them out." Instead, at
      > one point, all new Apple computers simply did not *have* floppy
      > drives! At the time, there was a whole heck of a lot of squealing
      > about this, if I recall correctly. Slowly though, PC makers dropped
      > floppy drives too. Now, they pretty much don't exist at all.
      >
      > I think it's possible that Apple's stance on Flash might possibly
      > provide a similar "nudge" that might get an industry out of a rut.
      > While I do like the analogy "don't pull down the old bridge until you
      > finish the new one," I don't think it quite applies. The old bridge
      > (Flash) is still there. It's just that, um... a "load limit" has been
      > put in place. That doesn't quite work, but I like it ;) And the new
      > bridge is far from finished: the two main support cables are in
      > place, but to get across you have to walk barefoot on a temporary bit
      > of rope... neither four-footed animals nor wheeled vehicles can be
      > accommodated yet. (Hmm... probably placing excessive demands on
      > analogy!)
      >
      > That's all.
      >
      > [1] The significance of the "2022" number that's been propagated would
      > appear to be questionable.
      > See reference at <
      > http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=2524
      > >
      >
      > eo
      >
      > On Jun 3, 2010, at 9:46 PM, blueslander wrote:
      >
      > > http://www.apple.com/html5/
      > >
      > > If you are not running on Safari, don't bother clicking the link,
      > > since it won't work on any other 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.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > --
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      ------------
      | A Y R |
      | T O N |
      ------------
      + 55 21 9982 6313 - RIO
      + 55 11 3717 5131 - SP
      http://ayrton360.com
      twitter.com/ayrton360


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Woody Howard
      I’m jumping in on the tail-end of the conversation but….. I use the Digimarc ( https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/images/ ) digital watermarking service
      Message 43 of 43 , Jun 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I’m jumping in on the tail-end of the conversation but….. I use the Digimarc
        ( https://www.digimarc.com/solutions/images/ ) digital watermarking service
        when I’m worried about image theft. I haven’t tried it yet with panos but
        I’ll 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 it’s 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 didn’t get rich
        with that check, but it did supply me with enough cash to cover several
        years of the Digimarc service.



        I’ll be buying Pano Cocoon shortly.



        Woody



        >>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
        Magnum
        >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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.