Re: [videoblogging] formats

On 28/06/2004, at 12:07 AM, PeterV wrote:

> Back to the formats discussion, I don't really understand how it all
> fits together. Know of a good introduction somewhere I can read?

MPEG 4 is based on the QuickTime architecture. It isn't qt, but they
took the qt ideas of architecture to use in MPEG4. MPEG 4 is an
international consortium that more or less has agreed and open
standards. Anyone can make a mpeg 4 compliant player, encoder, etc. I
think *that's think* that there are licensing fees involved.

QuickTime is a media architecture that other stuff gets loaded into
that can then be presented/played. This is why people write specific
plugins for qt that let you do clever things like vector graphic
things, and whatnot.

Real and WMV are more like 'dumb' formats in that (here i really need
to be watched, i've only done my serious work in QuickTime so don't
know much anymore about Real and WMV) they are primarily presentation
engines. QT is an authoring environment as well as a presentation
environment (if you like it is more like html). Nearly everyone even if
they publish to WMV or Real, use QuickTime in their production chain.
At the end they then export to WMV or Real. You can use SMIL to do
nifty stuff, but keep in mind SMIL is like HTML for multimedia, it
still isn't about 'interactivity'. And it still has a very high level
of granularity, a hunk of video is a whole object and it doesn't do
much of a job of thinking about it in terms of parts.

for an intro to some of these differences have a look at the intro.
paragraphs at
http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/desktopvogging/desktopvogging.html

of course real and wmv dominate the installed user base.

cheers
Adrian Miles
………………………………………………………..
hypertext.rmit || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/adrian
interactive networked video || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog
research blog || hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/