 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / January 2007Convergence for iTunes/iPod/iLife/iTV: MPEG-4
I was recently in an argument/discussion with someone about the most important new features of MPEG-4. As far as he was concerned, it was the new compression capabilities as no-one was using the bells and whistles. Then it dawned on me: Apple has positioned itself to be THE premier provider of tools for MPEG-4 production AND playback... When iTV is released, depending on how it is designed, you could have the perfect MPEG-4 settop player, capable of playing normal iTune movies and TV shows as well as special MPEG-4 files with a substantial subset of the MPEG-4 bells and whistles added. With a simultaneous release of a new version of iTunes to support MPEG-4 features AND a version of iLife that allows content-creation or even content addition to existing iTune content using those features, Apple could create a compelling reason to own iTV AND a Mac. It all depends on several issues: how upgradeable is the OS of iTV, what kind of user interface controls will be available, and whether anyone at Apple believes supporting MPEG-4 features would be a compelling reason to buy iTV or to upgrade iLife. Obviously, the fact that iLife is Mac-only is an important plus for Apple. There could even be a reason to include an "iShake" application in an iTV-ready iLife (see page 7 in the pdf below). Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . iTunes + iLife + iTV could be THE killer combo for MPEG-4. If iTV caught on in a big way, cable-providers might start selling MPEG-4-based advertising for playback through iTV. Scary. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/presentations/pdffiles/mpeg4gat.pdf [...] > Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . > iTunes + iLife + iTV could be THE killer combo for MPEG-4. If iTV caught > on in a big way, cable-providers might start selling MPEG-4-based > advertising for playback through iTV. Scary. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/presentations/pdffiles/mpeg4gat.pdf So MPEG-4 is dead, except as a better codec? > [...] > > Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So MPEG-4 is dead, except as a better codec? Interactive features in video formats -- which QuickTime has supported practically forever -- have never caught on for any but the most trivial purposes. VRML was a big flop. And some of the other stuff, like the face coding, might be useful if bandwidth was severely restricted, but it's not these days. Moreover, just because all of this stuff is lumped into one huge standard doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to get implemented. Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. I find it quite entertaining that even Flash is probably used more commonly today to deliver video content than the interactive content it was originally designed to deliver. Hopefully Adobe will take note and implement H.264 in it. (As things stand now, flash video is 2-3 times as large as H.264 QuickTime for similar quality.)  Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >> [...] >>> Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > practically forever -- have never caught on for any but the most trivial > purposes. There's a difference between supporting it in libraries and providing tools to create it. Where's the iMovie tool to create interactive buttons in QuickTime movies, for instance? You gotta pay relatively big bucks to do that for Flash. I don't think any cheap product exists to do it in QT. VRML was a big flop. Its a standards thing. There's bunches of conflicting content-creation software that don't quite support even the same bits of VRML 1.0 letalone w3d or whatever the new standard is called. And some of the other stuff, like the > face coding, might be useful if bandwidth was severely restricted, but > it's not these days. Moreover, just because all of this stuff is lumped > into one huge standard doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to > get implemented. No-one expected it to ALL be implemented in one product, but I suspect that people are surprised at how little is being used. You still don't get multiple-language support from iTunes as far as I can tell. Of course, I don't know that iTunes exposes controls for video to display subtitles, and iPod video has been MPEG-4 based from the start, and that kind of thing is an MPEG-2 standard. > Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, > like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. Those are MPEG-2 level. There should massive support from Apple for 3rd party plug-ins for iTunes and iLife and yet there isn't ANY, as far as I know. iTunes enhancement should be a major industry for developers and content-creators on the Mac side of things, and yet there is nothing. > I find it quite entertaining that even Flash is probably used more > commonly today to deliver video content than the interactive content it > was originally designed to deliver. I don't think that that is quite true. Plenty of websites implement simple buttons and other GUI stuff using Flash, even though they don't provide any kind of video content as far as the end-user is concerned. Animation studies/special FX studios were using Flash+webbrowser to create GUI front-ends to Maya until the latest version when web browser support was removed. > Hopefully Adobe will take note and > implement H.264 in it. (As things stand now, flash video is 2-3 times > as large as H.264 QuickTime for similar quality.) > >> [...] > >>> Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > bucks to do that for Flash. I don't think any cheap product exists to do > it in QT. So, application developers aren't any more interested than users, then. > VRML was a big flop. > > Its a standards thing. There's bunches of conflicting content-creation > software that don't quite support even the same bits of VRML 1.0 > letalone w3d or whatever the new standard is called. I don't think that was the problem. What's the use case for VRML on a web page or a set-top box? I mean, I can think of a couple of things. It would be neat to throw in 3D models of locations in movies as DVD extra type content... but frankly this is the kind of gimmick that might get a few more fans to buy the content, but would provide a grand total of about five minutes worth of actual entertainment. Back in the mid-90s, when VRML was supposed to the hot new thing, the lack of standardization you describe above was true of the web in general. Yet, the 2D web got fixed, and is now used by hundreds of millions of people... while the "3D web" got talked up in press releases for a couple of years and then went away. Second Life is sort of interesting as an example of how you can actually make networked 3D environments interesting, but it works on a fundamentally different model from things like VRML, in that it presents a unified multiuser world, not just isolated single-user 3D environments. And I still don't see an amazing use case for integrating it with other media at anything but the most superficial level (e.g. allow it to be launched as a helper app from browsers via hyperlink and vice versa). > > And some of the other stuff, like the face coding, might be useful > > if bandwidth was severely restricted, but it's not these days. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to display subtitles, and iPod video has been MPEG-4 based from the > start, and that kind of thing is an MPEG-2 standard. I suspect Apple will use the multi-track features to do subtitles and multiple languages when the iTunes movie store goes international. This is, again, fairly trivial usage; it's a packaging convenience, not the interactive media revolution we've been hearing about for probably 20 years now. We occasionally hear some implausible idea, like having hyperlinks in movies that people can click to buy placed products, but... who's really going to pause a movie to click on a character's shoes? This is going to be another one of those things that gets hyped for a couple of years and then goes away. > > Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, > > like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > simple buttons and other GUI stuff using Flash, even though they don't > provide any kind of video content as far as the end-user is concerned. Yes, but a lot of this stuff is actually moving to JavaScript, which is much more of a "native" web technology, and will probably end up on SVG in a few years. Meanwhile, YouTube built a business that Google just paid $1.65B, using Flash to deliver what (though YouTube does make some minor use of its interactivity features) basically amounts to plain old non-interactive video. > Animation studies/special FX studios were using Flash+webbrowser to > create GUI front-ends to Maya until the latest version when web browser > support was removed. Err? I've never heard of anything like that. > > Hopefully Adobe will take note and > > implement H.264 in it. (As things stand now, flash video is 2-3 times > > as large as H.264 QuickTime for similar quality.) Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >>>> [...] >>>>> Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > few more fans to buy the content, but would provide a grand total of > about five minutes worth of actual entertainment. Artists can only work with the tools that are available unless they are techno-geeks and create the tools themselves. And people ARE starting to use 3D in content. Look at the creative 3D stuff that people are creating using Quartz Composer, even though the tool is almost completely 2D in orientation. If you make the tools easy enough for non-technical artiste types to use, they start using it. > Back in the mid-90s, when VRML was supposed to the hot new thing, the > lack of standardization you describe above was true of the web in > general. Yet, the 2D web got fixed, and is now used by hundreds of > millions of people... while the "3D web" got talked up in press releases > for a couple of years and then went away. Not really, it's still being standardized though. And there's fewer implementations of 3D content packages out there, partly because the demand isn't as high, but partly (I believe) because they're harder to implement well. > Second Life is sort of interesting as an example of how you can actually > make networked 3D environments interesting, but it works on a > fundamentally different model from things like VRML, in that it presents > a unified multiuser world, not just isolated single-user 3D > environments. I only heard of Second Life today (yesterday). How is it different from MMORPGs? And I agree that implementing the typical EQ/WoW MMORPG would be virtually impossible using MPEG-4, but that doesn't mean that someone couldn't figure out a way to do interesting multi-personal interactive stuff with it. And I still don't see an amazing use case for integrating > it with other media at anything but the most superficial level (e.g. > allow it to be launched as a helper app from browsers via hyperlink and > vice versa). 3D tools are still extremely cumbersome. As the ease-of-use of the tools improves, you will see more interesting stuff appear. Right now, you have Gollum and King Kong level stuff because companies can afford to pay the bucks for the techno-geek artists that can use the packages like Maya, and you have the 3D equivalent of ASCII Snoopy Calenders and nothing in between. >>> And some of the other stuff, like the face coding, might be useful >>> if bandwidth was severely restricted, but it's not these days. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > interactive media revolution we've been hearing about for probably 20 > years now. I agree that it is likely fairly trivial given its part of the MPEG-2 standard that has been around for quite some time. BTW, I don't know that it is a very GOOD international store right now, but iTunes allows one to select the region for the store in the current version, though the menu isn't always visible without scrolling. Unless Apple censors the US version, iTunes doesn't support TV and movies in other countires right now. > We occasionally hear some implausible idea, like having hyperlinks in > movies that people can click to buy placed products, but... who's really > going to pause a movie to click on a character's shoes? This is going to > be another one of those things that gets hyped for a couple of years and > then goes away. Eh. There's reasons for having 2D buttons in movies. There would be even more reasons to have buttons associated with 3D objects in 3D movies. >>> Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, >>> like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > much more of a "native" web technology, and will probably end up on SVG > in a few years. I don't think it is moving TO JavaScript so much as moving FROM JavaScript. > Meanwhile, YouTube built a business that Google just paid $1.65B, using > Flash to deliver what (though YouTube does make some minor use of its [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Err? I've never heard of anything like that. Check out the threads on user interface in MEL in the maya forums at cgtalk.com. At least SOME maya techs are pissed at AutoDesk for pulling webbrowser support. >> > Hopefully Adobe will take note and >> > implement H.264 in it. (As things stand now, flash video is 2-3 times >> > as large as H.264 QuickTime for similar quality.) > >>>> [...] > >>>>> Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > completely 2D in orientation. If you make the tools easy enough for > non-technical artiste types to use, they start using it. They'll start using it for the same kind of things you "artiste types" using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical value that exists on the margins. > > Back in the mid-90s, when VRML was supposed to the hot new thing, the > > lack of standardization you describe above was true of the web in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > demand isn't as high, but partly (I believe) because they're harder to > implement well. If there were any significant demand for web-based 3D content, the technical problems with VRML would have been resolved years ago. > > Second Life is sort of interesting as an example of how you can actually > > make networked 3D environments interesting, but it works on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I only heard of Second Life today (yesterday). How is it different from > MMORPGs? In general, it's designed for social interaction rather than being based around accomplishing game-like goals, it allows the in-game creation of arbitrary 3D objects and programmed behaviors, and it openly allows exchange of in-game money and real-world currency. > And I agree that implementing the typical EQ/WoW MMORPG would be > virtually impossible using MPEG-4, but that doesn't mean that someone > couldn't figure out a way to do interesting multi-personal > interactive stuff with it. Like what? Seriously. Interactive multi-personal stuff tends to require complicated interfaces, that aren't going to work well on set-tops or in browsers. Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to discover 3D content, as in Second Life? And why have many separate 3D worlds? I don't want to have a dozen different avatars in different isolated 3D environments. Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to support multi-user content. > And I still don't see an amazing use case for integrating > > it with other media at anything but the most superficial level (e.g. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maya, and you have the 3D equivalent of ASCII Snoopy Calenders and > nothing in between. You also have apps like SketchUp, which is being used in Google Earth. Incidentally application which demonstrates that while Internet-based 3D can be successful, *web-based* 3D is a dud. [snip] > > We occasionally hear some implausible idea, like having hyperlinks in > > movies that people can click to buy placed products, but... who's really [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eh. There's reasons for having 2D buttons in movies. I have yet to see a very compelling one that wasn't completely trivial. (As again, with DVD menus. And arguably, a standard UI for navigating DVD features would be more useful than custom DVD menus are.) Seriously. I keep hearing about all these new possibilities for interactive content attached to video. I have been for over a decade. Maybe you can *finally* give me a plausible use case? Nobody else ever has. > There would be even more reasons to have buttons associated with 3D > objects in 3D movies. What do you mean by 3D movies? You mean stereoscopic stuff? That's another gimmick that has never caught on, and if it ever did, you'd probably be better off with pre-rendered buttons anyway. > >>> Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, > >>> like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I don't think it is moving TO JavaScript so much as moving FROM JavaScript. Um. Google "Ajax", please. > > Meanwhile, YouTube built a business that Google just paid $1.65B, using > > Flash to deliver what (though YouTube does make some minor use of its [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cgtalk.com. At least SOME maya techs are pissed at AutoDesk for pulling > webbrowser support. Could you possibly find anything more obscure? I'm just wondering. Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical > value that exists on the margins. WE artist types... Er, thanks, I guess. >>> Back in the mid-90s, when VRML was supposed to the hot new thing, the >>> lack of standardization you describe above was true of the web in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If there were any significant demand for web-based 3D content, the > technical problems with VRML would have been resolved years ago. 3D is hard, and there IS a demand for some kinds of 3D content, as EQ, WoW and Second Life show. > >>> Second Life is sort of interesting as an example of how you can actually [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > arbitrary 3D objects and programmed behaviors, and it openly allows > exchange of in-game money and real-world currency. Ah, thanks. >> And I agree that implementing the typical EQ/WoW MMORPG would be >> virtually impossible using MPEG-4, but that doesn't mean that someone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > complicated interfaces, that aren't going to work well on set-tops or in > browsers. Or like consoles? Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why > browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to > discover 3D content, as in Second Life? And why have many separate 3D > worlds? I don't want to have a dozen different avatars in different > isolated 3D environments. Dunno. Why not have one amorphous giant web-site? > Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to support multi-user > content. It isn't clear to me either, but I don't count anything out. MPEG-4 is a large specification. >> And I still don't see an amazing use case for integrating >>> it with other media at anything but the most superficial level (e.g. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Incidentally application which demonstrates that while Internet-based 3D > can be successful, *web-based* 3D is a dud. My guess is that GoogleEarth will eventually be implemented as a plug-in as well as a standalone. And Sketchup is quite nice, but is hardly interactive and is STILL too difficult for most people, IMHO. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (As again, with DVD menus. And arguably, a standard UI for navigating > DVD features would be more useful than custom DVD menus are.) But less fun, and less immersive. > Seriously. I keep hearing about all these new possibilities for > interactive content attached to video. I have been for over a decade. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > another gimmick that has never caught on, and if it ever did, you'd > probably be better off with pre-rendered buttons anyway. I was referring to the 3D space that MPEG-4 movies can (does?) render into. Current MPEG-4 video uses MPEG-4 capabilities in much the same way Quartz uses OpenGL textures to draw windows. There's a lot more to OpenGL than drawing windows, and a lot more to MPEG-4 than compressing 2D movies efficiently (or should be). >>>>> Maybe you'll see MPEG-4 movies distributed with chapter stops and menus, >>>>> like DVDs. I don't imagine these features will be used for much else. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Um. Google "Ajax", please. Things move in cycles, obviously. Why, in MY day, it was the big thing to use Flash for that capability. What little reading I just did suggests that SVG should be a better bet than Ajax in the long-run though SVG has the same problem as MPEG-4 3D in a sense: no pervasive commercial solutions and virtually no market-penetration. >>> Meanwhile, YouTube built a business that Google just paid $1.65B, using >>> Flash to deliver what (though YouTube does make some minor use of its [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Could you possibly find anything more obscure? I'm just wondering. It was a "for instance." It DOES highlight my point that current 3D tools are quite esoteric though. > > They'll start using it for the same kind of things you "artiste types" > > using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical > > value that exists on the margins. > > WE artist types... Er, thanks, I guess. Err, that was supposed to be "you see", but either way.... [snip] > >> And I agree that implementing the typical EQ/WoW MMORPG would be > >> virtually impossible using MPEG-4, but that doesn't mean that someone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Or like consoles? I think you probably need a real keyboard, which these days appears to be the major distinction between consoles and computers. > Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why > > browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dunno. Why not have one amorphous giant web-site? Though hyperlinks, and because of the way browser interfaces work, you basically *do* browse web pages all within the same large world. Sure, things aren't all on one centralized system, but that's an implementation detail. You could decentralize Second Life in the same way without breaking the "single 3D world" concept. (You'd need a centralized system to keep track of geography, I suppose, but, then, mapping between coordinates in virtual space and specific servers is not conceptually very different from what DNS does.) > > Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to support multi-user > > content. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > My guess is that GoogleEarth will eventually be implemented as a plug-in > as well as a standalone. Maybe, but it'll still be special-purpose software; not really the same thing as a generalized delivery mechanism for 3D content on the web, for which I still, after all these years, haven't seen a plausible use case. [snip] > > What do you mean by 3D movies? You mean stereoscopic stuff? That's > > another gimmick that has never caught on, and if it ever did, you'd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into. Current MPEG-4 video uses MPEG-4 capabilities in much the same way > Quartz uses OpenGL textures to draw windows. OK, but why are you going to use this? [snip] Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >>> They'll start using it for the same kind of things you "artiste types" >>> using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I think you probably need a real keyboard, which these days appears to > be the major distinction between consoles and computers. For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, console-level controllers (which are getting more sophisticated all the time--look at the wii wand controllers), will be quite adequate. >> Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why >>> browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but, then, mapping between coordinates in virtual space and specific > servers is not conceptually very different from what DNS does.) I see no reason why such content couldn't be displayed via MPEG-4. Did you ever play the original Marathon game from Bungie? The game playback was a QuickTIme file that basically recorded the player's moves, even over a network. The codec itself was the actual game engine of Marathon. You could switch camera-views and even switch player-views while the game was playing back and change the playback speed as well. It seems plausible that a Second Life-like codec could leverage MPEG-4 features from inside MPEG-4 itself and allow for the creation and interaction of all sorts of distributed worlds. >>> Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to support multi-user >>> content. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > thing as a generalized delivery mechanism for 3D content on the web, for > which I still, after all these years, haven't seen a plausible use case. I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or worlds or universes or dimensions or whatevers. GE allows you to see progressively more details of the local terrain as you zoom in and this would be quite useful for traveling from one virtual world/land to the next. Web-surfing via geometric interface. Apple's old Project X tried this, but the available graphics and bandwidth only allowed for clouds of URLs. An extended version of Google Earth could allow you to navigate a terrain of the VR equivalent of URLs in a more entertaining, or even more comprehensible way. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [snip] Who knows? Usable distributed 3D media is still a chicken and egg issue because of the steep learning curve for the tools. And even when the chickens are hatched, they're more like puffer fish: extremely tasty (at least for some) when cooked precisely the right way, but only a handful of cooks have the talent and training to use them. > >>> They'll start using it for the same kind of things you "artiste types" > >>> using Flash for: gratuitous over-designed stuff of little practical [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > console-level controllers (which are getting more sophisticated all the > time--look at the wii wand controllers), will be quite adequate. For anything involving interacting with other humans at a level beyond shooting at them, keyboards are necessary. At least until voice chat is pervasive in interactive environments. > >> Plus, if you see value in 3D, why embed in in 2D media? Why > >>> browse the web for 3D content when you can wander around a 3D world to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > features from inside MPEG-4 itself and allow for the creation and > interaction of all sorts of distributed worlds. My reading of the document you linked does not suggest the format is anywhere near flexible enough for this. Anyway, it's basically a container format -- how much sense does it make for live interactive environments (rather than static content) to be contained? > >>> Also, it's not clear to me MPEG-4 has the features to support multi-user > >>> content. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > a terrain of the VR equivalent of URLs in a more entertaining, or even > more comprehensible way. It would be a gimmick, and people would play around with it for a few minutes and then never bother again. Seriously. We've seen all this before. > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > least for some) when cooked precisely the right way, but only a handful > of cooks have the talent and training to use them. I remember playing around with VRML 11 or 12 years ago. I can think of several significant web standards (Flash, CSS, RSS, etc.) that didn't even exist back then and are pervasive now, yet VRML has been almost completely stagnant. The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format, not the other way around. Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 [...] >> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, >> console-level controllers (which are getting more sophisticated all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shooting at them, keyboards are necessary. At least until voice chat is > pervasive in interactive environments. iChat conferencing apparently already uses H.264 compression. It should be possible to limit which voices are sent to which person in a conferencing chat based on how far away someone is within the VR world so bandwidth issues and whatever else might look like a potential issue here isn't really. [...] >>> (You'd need a centralized system to keep track of geography, I suppose, >>> but, then, mapping between coordinates in virtual space and specific [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > container format -- how much sense does it make for live interactive > environments (rather than static content) to be contained? The BBC probably wasn't analyzing MPEG-4 from the point of view of implementing some kind of EverQuest-like game or SL world. Hmmmm... googling MPEG-4 game... http://graphics.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~firebird/download/2001gtc.pdf http://www-artemis.int-evry.fr/Publications/library/Tran-ICME2003.pdf >> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or >> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > minutes and then never bother again. Seriously. We've seen all this > before. Maybe. However, the Second Life players are actually discussing this kind of thing (using Google Earth or something like it with SL) in their forums. >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format, > not the other way around. VRML has given way to X3D which is the new basis for MPEG-4 3D scenes. There's even an Ajax3D based on Ajax + X3D. I think that the situation you describe is about to change. The current generation of low-end video cards (even the built-in graphics of the Mac Mini!) are more than capable of handling Second Life type graphics. X3D is an XML-based language. I don't know that there is a binary version, but likely one will be devised if the text version proves too slow for Virtual Worlds use. > [...] > >> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > so bandwidth issues and whatever else might look like a potential issue > here isn't really. Probably for WoW-type games where most of the content is stored locally this is true. For Second Life type environments, where geometry and textures get streamed, bandwidth is going to still be an issue for a while. Are there headsets for consoles? > [...] > >>> (You'd need a centralized system to keep track of geography, I suppose, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www-artemis.int-evry.fr/Publications/library/Tran-ICME2003.pdf I'm really not seeing anything particularly compelling there. Maybe MPEG-4 might gain some traction for the sort of simple little games people presently implement in Flash. This isn't exactly going to be a major shakeup. > >> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or > >> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > kind of thing (using Google Earth or something like it with SL) in their > forums. Sure. Just don't expect people to use this kind of thing as a substitute for web browsing. > >>>>> What do you mean by 3D movies? You mean stereoscopic stuff? That's > >>>>> another gimmick that has never caught on, and if it ever did, you'd [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > language. I don't know that there is a binary version, but likely one > will be devised if the text version proves too slow for Virtual Worlds use. Because, you know, when a technology stagnates for a decade, coming up with a buzzword-compliant replacement with a new name always turns things around. Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >> [...] >>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > textures get streamed, bandwidth is going to still be an issue for a > while. So no content is stored on the client side? > Are there headsets for consoles? I would think so, especially for the latest ones like Xbox 360 and wii >> [...] >>>>> (You'd need a centralized system to keep track of geography, I suppose, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > people presently implement in Flash. This isn't exactly going to be a > major shakeup. Eh. SOmeone created a demo of one of the 1st person shooters using X3D that is supposed to be pretty snappy. Uses DirectX/3D so I can't test it (the concept of an open source "cross platform" project that requires a proprietary library is a tad odd, IMHO. >>>> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or >>>> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Sure. Just don't expect people to use this kind of thing as a substitute > for web browsing. For some kinds of browsing, it might be more efficient. [...] >>> The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format, >>> not the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with a buzzword-compliant replacement with a new name always turns > things around. VRML was XML based also. My point was about the binary format. And there ARE uses for VRML, even. > >> [...] > >>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So no content is stored on the client side? There's a local cache, but it never contains more than a tiny fraction of the world at any given time. This can be entertaining on slow connections... you teleport into something that looks like an empty field, and then watch as buildings and people start popping into existence one by one. > > Are there headsets for consoles? > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > (the concept of an open source "cross platform" project that requires a > proprietary library is a tad odd, IMHO. And being able to embed first-person shooters in web pages is useful how, again? > >>>> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or > >>>> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > For some kinds of browsing, it might be more efficient. For browsing based on *actual* geography, e.g. finding content related to specific real-world locations, it's useful. That's about it. > >>> The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format, > >>> not the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > VRML was XML based also. VRML predates XML by 3 or 4 years. > My point was about the binary format. And there ARE uses for VRML, > even. Not widespread ones. Signature"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005 >>>> [...] >>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There's a local cache, but it never contains more than a tiny fraction > of the world at any given time. That actually seems inefficient. Unless a "default" world is built into the graphics engine... > This can be entertaining on slow connections... you teleport into > something that looks like an empty field, and then watch as buildings > and people start popping into existence one by one. Sounds like there IS a default world built-in: empty field. [...] >> Eh. SOmeone created a demo of one of the 1st person shooters using X3D >> that is supposed to be pretty snappy. Uses DirectX/3D so I can't test it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And being able to embed first-person shooters in web pages is useful > how, again? Shows that x3d is capable of rendering 3D virtual worlds of that type (afterlife?) in realtime using streaming media, which is what x3d within MPEG-4 would use. From what I've seen of the screenshots of Second Life, the world isn't so complex as to preclude being embedded in an MPEG-4 stream. And there might be reasons to do that (or embed MPEG-4 in the Second LIfe stream, but that would be less useable on a set-top box unless it had the Second LIfe codec isntalled. >>>>>> I can see an obvious interaction between Google Earth and Second Life or >>>>>> a meta-Second Life: The ability to travel quickly to foreign "lands" or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That's about it. That YOU can think of. There are countless ways of organizing data and meta-data that neither of us have thought of. Some efficient ones might lend themselves to a Google-Earth-like system. Or perhaps not. I just remember Andy Grove's alleged corollary to Moore's Law: "...and every two years people come up with stuff to do with it you never imagined was possible." >>>>> The tools are primitive because there's no good use case for the format, >>>>> not the other way around. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Not widespread ones. Things change. > >>>> [...] > >>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > That actually seems inefficient. Unless a "default" world is built into > the graphics engine... The world is huge, and allows users to construct arbitrary objects and upload arbitrary textures. So, it's not like WoW, where you only have to download new data when Blizzard changes something, which doesn't happen that often. [snip] > >>> Sure. Just don't expect people to use this kind of thing as a substitute > >>> for web browsing. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > two years people come up with stuff to do with it you never imagined was > possible." OK, but people have been going on about this stuff for a decade now, and nobody appears to have come up with anything particularly useful. [snip] Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > download new data when Blizzard changes something, which doesn't happen > that often. Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content that is continually being updated: the locations of all the MOBs and players. Of course, custom textures aren't allowed, nor are arbitrary objects, but from what I've heard, there are few places where 100+ avatars congregate in 2nd Life, so the demands on the system are entirely different. If 100+ people added arbitrary objects and textures to the same local area, I'm pretty sure that 2nd Life's lag would be worse than the first day that the Bazar went live in Luclin if you were there for that (not to mention the day that the Ahn Qi'raj portal opened in WoW). > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > OK, but people have been going on about this stuff for a decade now, and > nobody appears to have come up with anything particularly useful. Have you seen what passes for tools for some of this stuff? Its pathetic. Creative types don't want to learn programming languages or the GUI equivalent to create something. > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content that is > continually being updated: the locations of all the MOBs and players. Sure, but this stuff is comparatively tiny, compared with all the geometry and textures.. > Of course, custom textures aren't allowed, nor are arbitrary objects, > but from what I've heard, there are few places where 100+ avatars [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there for that (not to mention the day that the Ahn Qi'raj portal > opened in WoW). The entire Second Life world is arbitrary objects, essentially. How many you have within your field of view depends on your settings, among other things. You can potentially get a very large number in your field of view, if you're looking from a high place. (And since avatars can fly, that's not uncommon.) > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > pathetic. Creative types don't want to learn programming languages or > the GUI equivalent to create something. Yes. But my argument is that the tools are so primitive, even after all these years, primarily because nobody can really think of anything much that would create demand significant to justify the investment requirement to make them better. Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Sure, but this stuff is comparatively tiny, compared with all the > geometry and textures.. Sure, but its not constantly changing as is the case with 100+ mobile objects and/or avatars. >> Of course, custom textures aren't allowed, nor are arbitrary objects, >> but from what I've heard, there are few places where 100+ avatars [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of view, if you're looking from a high place. (And since avatars can > fly, that's not uncommon.) I suspect that there is a way of scaling how much info is sent to each 2nd Life client based on how far away an object is. Is there only one geometric description per object? Even if so, there could be some attempt made on the server-side at scaling the info automatically. > >>> [snip] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that would create demand significant to justify the investment > requirement to make them better. It's a chicken and egg thing. Up until recently, the highest-end movie studio 3D packages cost as much as $60,000 (e.g. Maya Unlimited). Now, you can get a student version for less than $400. Those packages were around for YEARS but no-one was posting homemade 3D animations on the net using them, so non-professionals must not have had any ideas, eh? Now, Youtube has over 11,000 entries for "3d animation." http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3d+animation&search=Search As the tools become cheaper and easier to use, you will see more stuff made using them. > >>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>> For some stuff, keyboards are essential. But for other stuff, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Sure, but its not constantly changing as is the case with 100+ mobile > objects and/or avatars. It is constantly changing if you're moving around. [snip] > >>> OK, but people have been going on about this stuff for a decade now, and > >>> nobody appears to have come up with anything particularly useful. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > As the tools become cheaper and easier to use, you will see more stuff > made using them. Which might be really interesting if I'd been saying there was no large market for 3D animation software or computer-generated animation. But of course I haven't been saying that. I've been saying there's no large market for distributing 3D content *as* 3D content[1]. This has nothing to do with the market for things like, say, Pixar movies, which happen to be creating using 3D animation tools. [1] Except the video game market, of course. Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 [...]. >>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content that is >>>> continually being updated: the locations of all the MOBs and players. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is constantly changing if you're moving around. All the arbitrary objects are moving around constantly? The buildings never stand still? [...] >> As the tools become cheaper and easier to use, you will see more stuff >> made using them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > [1] Except the video game market, of course. My point is that there was no large market for distributed 3D animation until the price of the tools came down. Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it, because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save as relatively complex open source distributions that I have to get working. If the tools were widely available, and reasonably easy to use, AND there were widely available and easy-to-use MPEG-4 players (beyond the Extended Simple profile that QuickTime implements), you would obviously see more MPEG-4 content. How much more, who can say? But right now, you don't see ANY, unless you go to the trouble of downloading GPAC or purchase some pretty darned expensive commercial solution. > [...]. > >>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > All the arbitrary objects are moving around constantly? The buildings > never stand still? Position data is really pretty trivial to send. > >> As the tools become cheaper and easier to use, you will see more > >> stuff made using them. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My point is that there was no large market for distributed 3D > animation until the price of the tools came down. Uh. But there was. > Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it, > because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > downloading GPAC or purchase some pretty darned expensive commercial > solution. We're going in circles here. As I've pointed out several times, during the time VRML and similar have been stagnating, other technologies have got from non-existent to industry-standard. These things do actually happen. But only if there's demand. Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 >> [...]. >>>>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Uh. But there was. Made by home users? I must have missed that. >> Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it, >> because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > got from non-existent to industry-standard. These things do actually > happen. But only if there's demand. 3D technology is actually changing far faster than 2D. What seemed potentially useful 10 years ago has been completely superseded since then. 3D tools 10 years ago were even more primitive than they are now. Etc. You may be correct that there is not and will possibly never be a demand for x3d/MPEG-4 VR-streaming, but you can't base that assumption on recent history. Things have changed far too much, far too fast in the field. Moore's Law for CPUs works out to a doubling of speed every 18 months. Moore's Law for GPU's works out to a doubling of speed every 6 months. Video cards 10 years ago were barely beyond simple frame-buffers. Video cards now are, in many ways, more powerful than the CPUs that support them. > >> [...]. > >>>>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Made by home users? I must have missed that. Sometimes made by home users. More often made by e.g. Pixar. This is how these things often work -- the guys with the deep pockets and the technical know-how pioneer things, and then everyone gets on board later. Notably, we're not seeing the guys with the deep pockets and the technical know-how caring much about creating X3D content. > >> Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it, > >> because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > frame-buffers. Video cards now are, in many ways, more powerful than the > CPUs that support them. The VRML use cases don't become any more compelling when you add higher resolution textures and more polygons, though. Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three‹three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 >>>> [...]. >>>>>>>> Eh. Even within EQ and WoW, there's a huge amount of content [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Notably, we're not seeing the guys with the deep pockets and the > technical know-how caring much about creating X3D content. Where's the big bucks for such companies? >>>> Right now, I can't even PLAY MPEG-4 content letalone create it, >>>> because none of the experimental tools are available on the Mac save [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The VRML use cases don't become any more compelling when you add higher > resolution textures and more polygons, though. Combined with faster streaming, I think there is a use. Afterall, would ID have created its own graphics engine for Doom if OpenGL on high-end video cards had been available? Likewise, when the hardware and connections become fast enough, VR worlds based on X3D should become useable. > I was recently in an argument/discussion with someone about the most > important new features of MPEG-4. As far as he was concerned, it was the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > movies and TV shows as well as special MPEG-4 files with a substantial > subset of the MPEG-4 bells and whistles added. I'm sure it will support exactly what iTunes already supports. As far as we know about it now, it's just going to be an extension of Front Row to a remote TV. Basically a video version of the Airtunes product. > With a simultaneous release of a new version of iTunes to support MPEG-4 > features AND a version of iLife that allows content-creation or even > content addition to existing iTune content using those features, Apple > could create a compelling reason to own iTV AND a Mac. Well, I don't know how much of a clamor people with iLife have been making for the iTV, I believe it is targeted for the iTunes crowd, in which is available on Mac and Windows. > Here's a summary of features of MPEG-4 that might be doable with iTV . > iTunes + iLife + iTV could be THE killer combo for MPEG-4. If iTV caught > on in a big way, cable-providers might start selling MPEG-4-based > advertising for playback through iTV. Scary. That's a good possibility. I have to imagine the iTV has to at least be a DVR if it wants to compete with Windows Media Center/Vista. As is often the case, I pontificate without knowing the facts. I assumed that Apple's support of H.264, the MPEG-4 video compression format, would somehow give them a leg up on supporting other MPEG-4 features. In fact, H.264 is an *alternative* to "MPEG-4 Visual," which describes all the nifty features that I have been touting in this thread. In other words, Apple doesn't support that aspect of MPEG-4 any better than anyone else, so aside from their experience with QuickTIme, they aren't in any better position to support these features in iTV as MS is in THEIR settop box or console. A ray of hope: Apple is transitioning QT away from the old GWorlds drawing context to "virtual contexts," including an OpenGL-based context. This would be (I think) an important step to facilitate QuickTime support for MPEG-4 Visual-like features such as interactive 3D VR so perhaps Apple IS heading in this direction in the long-run. Whether or not iTV would ever display such QT or MPEG-4 movies is another question, of course. > I was recently in an argument/discussion with someone about the most > important new features of MPEG-4. As far as he was concerned, it was the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/presentations/pdffiles/mpeg4gat.pdf |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.