wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: WWP on Linux!
michel thoby 2007-Jul-05 16:30:00
Le 5 juil. 07 ? 16:52, yuval levy a ?crit :
>
> > I believe this is "the" true
> > legacy available standard and not the reverse!
>
> I am not sure I understand this sentence. Do you mean
> that most existing QTVR content out there is
> Cyl+Cinepak?
No, I wanted to point out that the earlier QTVR (1994 - 1998) were
IMHO probably all done with the Cinepak codec like the other QT
contents since about 1992.
It was then thought that it would be viewable for ever as there was
practically no alternative. This still holds with QT Viewer though.
Using the most commonly used standard instead of a newer one at a
given date is therefore not a guarantee of universality.
> surfing the web today with freepv tells a
> different story. All what freepv can display is JPG in
> QTVR and there is plenty of it.
I have plenty of CD fully loaded with cinepak coded cylindrical QTVR.
QTVR was mostly intended for CD authoring at first.
>
> Maybe the older Cinepak based stuff has been retired
> (it's so sad when excellent content such as the Sydney
> Opera Tour get retired and disappears without a
> trace).
As an venerable examples, I just went to visit Scott's web site and
checked that there are still some good old stuff there:
http://www.highton.com/pages/showqtvrport.html
Apparently, he has switched from cinepak to sorenson sometime in 1998
or 1999 ...
And so has done apparently Denis Gliksman:
http://www.la-grange-numerique.com/events/1995/1995-1.htm
>
> Anyway, the point I am making is not which one is a
> legacy (=old, outdated, unsupported) format, but which
> legacy format has the higher probability of being
> carried along in the future.
I agree, but is there a visionary answer to your question?
>
> Yuv
Michel
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]