Re: Looking for solutions-

Mark Andrew Nassy (nassy@flash.net)
Tue, 2 Jun 1998 14:11:55 -0400


At 5:22 AM -0500 on 6/2/98, Jason Williams wrote:

> If the Mac Cornell 1.0 version is anything like the PC Cornell 1.0
> version, this means the ability for people to SEND 320x240 vid (grayscale
> or color) and then the receivers have the ability to maximize it to
> 640x480.

ah. thanks.

> > "QuickTime 3.0 is the only technology that makes it simple to ship a single
> > application that works on all shipping platforms," Hoddie said.

> How so? Perhaps I missed something, but a lot of the QT3 codecs on the
> Mac aren't included in the PC version of QT3. This means "QuickTime 3.0

as far as i am aware qt 3 for the macintosh ppc and ms windows 95/nt should
include the same file formats [ i cant remember specifically where i read
this but some1 please correct me if i am wrong ]. was there a specific file
format(s) that you may have had in mind that is missing from the ms windows
95/nt version of qt 3 and is present in the macintosh ppc version of qt 3.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/news/pdffiles/qt3_fs.pdf

quicktime specifications on page 6 includes a list of the supported formats.

> I don't believe I've seen ANY QT3 support for Unix which I use quite a
> lot. :)

true. i agree that there doesnt appear that there is any qt 3 support for
unix. i am not aware of apples platform compatibility plans but i saw an
article on either:

http://www.macweek.com/ or
http://www.macintouch.com/

re: java and its support for some form of quicktime in some future version.
mayb this will be the mechanism that plaforms other than macintosh and ms
window 95/nt get support for quicktime.

> > "QuickTime 3.0 also offers the best basis for authoring tools."

> Nice opinion...I'm sure Microsoft would beg to differ :)

true.

> > Hoddie also said the emergence of DV recording devices (DV camcorders
> > are growing in popularity in countries such as Japan) will also fit into
> > the overall changing technology picture ...

> From what I've read, DV ANYTHING is still a couple of years away.
> Hardware has always moved MUCH faster than software in development.

> > this may present some interesting possibilities for transmitting and or
> > viewing dvd movies or movie previews via cu; it also may be useful for
> > those with (access to) dv camcorders.

> It will be interesting to see. If the drivers support backwards
> compatibility, there shouldn't be any problem.

the following document on apples quicktime web site:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/news/pdffiles/qt3_fs.pdf

on page 1 in the whats new section suggests that support for dv camcorders
is already built in qt 3 (im not sure if this refers to the dv ntsc and dv
pal formats--does any1 know for sure). while there may be some
unanticipated issues it may nevertheless present some possibilities for
those with the means or access to dv content and or hardware and a copy of
Bill Ryans, The MovieStreamer vDig.

At 7:32 AM -0400 on 6/2/98, Bill Ryan wrote:

> >For the Mac/OS:

> >* New 640x480 and 80x60 display modes for video windows.

> >does your reference to large video support refer a display mode larger than
> >640 x 480, another version of cu or some other possibility.

> I read the above to mean display mode only and not transfer mode. Meaning
> that the image will just be scaled locally to whatever size and not
> actually transmitted over the wire at that size.

> WPSI CU-SeeMe already does this local scaling ( a real no brainer).

> I was referring to actually sending over the wire the various other sizes.

ah, thanks for the clarification and information.

> People with camcorders (or VCRs) and AV Macs can do this already. Just plug
> them into the AV input jack and away you go.
> The MovieStreamer vDig is a lower cost option for those already having
> streaming content in digitial form.

true, however i was referring to dv camcorders and not camcorders / vcrs
that use the s-vhs ports.

id like to take the time to correct some information i mentioned in a
previous post to the list serve.

At 5:06 AM -0400 on 5/29/98, CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu wrote:

> CU-SEEME-L Digest 1504

> Topics covered in this issue include:

> 17) Re: status of the Cornell version 1.0.
> by Mark Andrew Nassy <nassy@flash.net>

> jpeg b and their video may not b accesible to some cu clients. on some
> platforms the m jpeg codec is not available legally for free. (not that im
> expecting it to b free but the cost may b a factor to some individuals.) on

i dont know for a fact that there is a cost factor for the consumer
involved in obtaining the m jpeg codec on some platforms as the statement
may have implied.

> as i understand it quicktime may b used as the basis for mpeg 4 and i also
> read somewhere that the 400 mhz g3 will b able to encode mpeg without the
> need for additional hardware. it would b interesting to me (at least) to
> try this codec with cu.

change encode to decode. in addition i received the following response from
someone with experience in the field of mpeg and quicktime--posted here
with permission (i hope to have an additional section from the letter on my
web page but as it is not pertinent to this current discussion i chose not
to include it). it may be of interest to those following this thread. the
following is an excerpt from the e mail message. the text was not changed
(ie, no words added or removed) but the layout was changed to hopeful make
for easier reading.

handleym@ricochet.net (Maynard Handley) wrote:

MPEG-4 is a very different issue. Since the MPEG-4 algorithms have not been
finalized I can't comment on them. I can say that the ideas they propose
are very interesting, but may
well be really tough for encode, even on the next round of 400MHz G3s,
though decode should be fine.

The most interesting ideas being proposed for MPEG-4 are based on very new
ideas out of academia and it will take some time before people know how to
perform the requisite model construction fast---and even when we know how
to do it fast, it will require a LOT of work. MPEG-4 is the future---but
it's not useful if you want something for the next six months or so.

> from my readings on the usenet macintosh groups i understand that intel may
> not interested in updating the indeo codec for the mac os from its present
> version of 3.22.24.09. thus it appears that the current
> versions 4.x and 5 and future versions will never b available for the
> macintosh. :-(

according to the following document on apples quicktime web site:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/news/pdffiles/qt3_fs.pdf

on page 6 (quicktime specifications) intel indeo 4.4 is a supported video
format.

the document also lists the following:

(1) format supported through apple extensions:
avr.

(2) formats supported through 3rd party extensions for video:

clear video
escape
true motion
h.261 < ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/cooltalk/mac/cooltalk.hqx >
indeo 3.2 <
ftp://download.intel.com/pc-supp/multimed/indeo/drivers/i32qtft.bin >.

(3) formats supported 3rd party extensions for audio:

g.273
gsm and < ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/cooltalk/mac/cooltalk.hqx >
g.728.

Mark Andrew Nassy,
<MAILTO:nassy@flash.net>