PDA

View Full Version : Very interesting new software



rakker16mm
05-17-2008, 01:48 PM
I went to a seminar in San Rafael at the former Physical Production Division of LucasFilm's ILM Special Effects Studio and now simply Kerner optical. There were several presentations most of which were very theoretical and dealt with branches of mathematics I didn't even know existed. SO... I won't even attempt to provide you with a summary. Any way these are things that we won't see for a little while yet but when it finally filters down to the user level we are all going to benefit immensely. To put it another way the unwanted and problematic intersection of geometry are going to be a thing of the past and this will happen at the algorithmic level. I love what math can do for me especially when I don't have to do the math my self.

One application that is ready to use now that I thought was rather cool is Framefree. In some ways this software defies description. Not so much because the things it does are so hard to understand but that in describing what it does people naturally think of other technologies that did something similar but not as well. For me it represents the poor man's renderfarm only it is way cooler than that. It is really going to change the way we work as animators. In the very near future you are not going to be thinking of things in terms of frame rate. Say you want to convert PAL @ 25 fps > NTSC @ 29.9 fps... No problem but why would you even bother watching discreet frames of video at any frame rate when you can watch video at whatever refresh rate your monitor is running at? Plus you can stop the video at any point you want to any you have a perfectly frozen non interlaced frame without any banding associated with the compression we are putting up with now? [ sorry for the run on sentence ]

I'm pretty sure this application is going to change how things are done on a lot of levels for a lot of people, but unless you are in the business of writing obsolete CODEC algorithms it's all good.

NAS
05-17-2008, 03:39 PM
Yep i personally think the world of Visuals in general is very much lagging behind the mathematical solutions available
I'm heavily involved in the audio world and in that field the tech tends to stay heavily up with the DSP math available
It's kind of looked on different because every person around is trying to use and abuse any math formula they can find to make a better product

Visuals has fallen so far behind that little one trick pony apps keep appearing that show off a new way and work extremely well
Hopefully at some stage an accelaration will begin in development that will lead to the catch up that is quite blatantly needed


NAS

loki74
05-17-2008, 04:56 PM
Well, for delivery purposes I can see why you'd want discreet frames. Same reason 24p is preferable to 30 or 60p for those seeking the "film look." However, during production it wold be nice to have a continuous function...

However, it does not make a whole lot of sense to me how this technology is possible--if it is possible to have a continuos and (for all intents and purposes) infinite resolution function in the time, why do we not see similar technologies applied in space (ie, an image with infinite detail no matter how far you zoom in)? Or is this similar to vector images but in the temporal domain--instead of discreet samples the signal is defined by a parametric function which is continuous and infinitely scalable w/o quality loss, but not necessarily infinitely detailed?

Slick concepts, regardless...

Lightwolf
05-17-2008, 06:40 PM
Yep i personally think the world of Visuals in general is very much lagging behind the mathematical solutions available

I beg to differ. However, I think visuals add a whole extra set of complexity that audio just doesn't have (i.e. I've only seen one audio render farm in use for example). I'm not saying audio is easier... but less complex.
Just compare the production times need for a piece of work on the audio side as compared to the visual side to get a graps of the scale.
New tech goes into CG constantly, but you are right, it requires time to be integrated and to permeate through the markets.

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-17-2008, 08:33 PM
Well, for delivery purposes I can see why you'd want discreet frames. Same reason 24p is preferable to 30 or 60p for those seeking the "film look." However, during production it wold be nice to have a continuous function...

Personally I am a big fan of the film look. I still have several Bolex H16 Rx3 cameras and passle of accessories to go with, but this is the first time I have considered selling the the lot and jumping into the digital realm with both feet.

The thing is when we talk about aesthetics of the film look what we are really talking about is a preference for the familiar. Leo Fender referred to this as the "Golden ear syndrome" In other words we like it because is what we know. The new technology oh the other hand seems strange by comparison. Having said that I have to say I was immediately taken by what I saw at the seminar. Also IMOHO the charm of the film look is hugely diminished by the process of digitization and compression. By the time the signal reaches the television screen much of the film look has been squeezed out of it.

Also I have neglected mention that this technology also has its own imperfections which they ironing out with each new version. Fortunately they have a very talented team of Russian mathematicians to work out all the pesky problems. They are currently working on version 5 and hope to have it out in the near future. At the moment this is PC only but I am told an intel Mac version is in the works.


However, it does not make a whole lot of sense to me how this technology is possible--if it is possible to have a continuos and (for all intents and purposes) infinite resolution function in the time, why do we not see similar technologies applied in space (ie, an image with infinite detail no matter how far you zoom in)? Or is this similar to vector images but in the temporal domain--instead of discreet samples the signal is defined by a parametric function which is continuous and infinitely scalable w/o quality loss, but not necessarily infinitely detailed?

Slick concepts, regardless...

I am definitely not the best person to explain the black magic involved in making this feat possible. All I am really qualified to say is that I found it very impressive. By the way you can check out some samples (http://www.framefree.com/samples.php) at their website, but you will need to download the free player to view them.

http://www.framefree.com/index.php

NAS
05-17-2008, 08:40 PM
Yes but i was also thinking about the intergration side of things
It's much easier to develop in the audio world because of the standards
For instance VST
If there where a global Particle plugin format or Global Dynamics plugin format and so on and so on it would be a much much more intergrated and easier to develop for visual industry

Imagine desiging your new latest greatest plugin for LW users Lightwolf knowing full well that Max or Maya or even DAZ Studio users could use it too
It not only opens up a much wider market for the devlopers but also opens up a much wider market for the users

I know currently there is not much hope for this but in the audio world it only took one major player to create an open plugin format and that was it the game was afoot

Realistically it isn't that hard to achieve but it is gonna take a major developer to do it out of goodness knowing in the long run it enhances there package
The proof is in the open formats like Collada
If Collada gets full support from the majority of devs and they implement everythng possible in it then passing stuff from appp to app is really no thing at all
It's a small leap (Not step) to the next level of plugin conformity too

I don't hold out much hope for it happening anytime soon though

Audio=VST (Mainly)
2D Editing=Photoshop filters (Mainly)
3D= a hundred different formats hahahahah

Anyway i can pipedream


NAS

loki74
05-17-2008, 09:23 PM
Personally I am a big fan of the film look. I still have several Bolex H16 Rx3 cameras and passle of accessories to go with, but this is the first time I have considered selling the the lot and jumping into the digital realm with both feet.

The thing is when we talk about aesthetics of the film look what we are really talking about is a preference for the familiar. Leo Fender referred to this as the "Golden ear syndrome" In other words we like it because is what we know. The new technology oh the other hand seems strange by comparison. Having said that I have to say I was immediately taken by what I saw at the seminar. Also IMOHO the charm of the film look is hugely diminished by the process of digitization and compression. By the time the signal reaches the television screen much of the film look has been squeezed out of it.

Valid points, all. But I would say its more a matter of tradition, nostalgia, etc, than a matter of familiarity.

It also has a lot to do with the perception of the audience--if they see 60 fps, deep DOF, and a guy in a suit, they'll probably immediately think "newscast." If they see a grainy, 24p image of a gun slowly being pulled into focus, the might think "film noir."

I don't have a problem with the new technology, and if an artist wants to have a very raw "newscast" look (ie, if they feel it is best for telling their story), then hey, that's just as valid as the next guy who wants that warm "artsy" look.

I agree about the loss of the film look... but I can still tell it apart from video even after digitization. Personally, from a production standpoint (not a viewing pleasure standpoint), I find my favorite aspect of standard film to be the flexibility with exposure and DOF--getting that kind of (totally necessary imho) creative control is costly and frustrating with digital cameras. But the cost of film and the turnaround time is simply unacceptable unless you've got serious resources.



I am definitely not the best person to explain the black magic involved in making this feat possible. All I am really qualified to say is that I found it very impressive. By the way you can check out some samples (http://www.framefree.com/samples.php) at their website, but you will need to download the free player to view them.

OH!

I know what this is... this is the same tech they use to make those "bullet-time" shots in movies like The Matrix. It's just a matter of highly advanced interpolation. Shake actually has a similar but MUCH less advanced "optical flow" technology for ramping frame rates and stabilizing footage.

But yeah, to get frozen time pan/dollys they just attach like 30 or so still cameras to a large ring, set them all off simultaneously, and use interpolation tech like this to get the full 24 or 30 or 60 fps out of those 30 frames.

AFAIK, this is the first time this kind of technology will be available to joe schmoe. Awesome! (now lets nag them for a Mac version! xD )

rakker16mm
05-17-2008, 10:16 PM
OH!

I know what this is... this is the same tech they use to make those "bullet-time" shots in movies like The Matrix. It's just a matter of highly advanced interpolation. Shake actually has a similar but MUCH less advanced "optical flow" technology for ramping frame rates and stabilizing footage.

But yeah, to get frozen time pan/dollys they just attach like 30 or so still cameras to a large ring, set them all off simultaneously, and use interpolation tech like this to get the full 24 or 30 or 60 fps out of those 30 frames.

Actually I am pretty sure the technology for bullet time is completely different, but yes you could do the same trick a lot cheaper and easier with this technology using far less equipment. Of course you know what happens when an old trick becomes easy it also becomes ubiquitous and dull because every one starts doing it and people get tired of seeing it.


AFAIK, this is the first time this kind of technology will be available to joe schmoe. Awesome! (now lets nag them for a Mac version! xD )

I'm not sure I completely understand their pricing schedule [ I only found out about this company yesterday so perhaps I can be forgiven... ] but any way the one year license for the HD version is $3999.95 [ IMOHO definitely worth it because it can can pay for itself easily ] where as the Express and Pro version are only $99 and $199 respectively. It appears to me that the main difference in the versions is the limitation in screen resolution when you are using their proprietary file format ".fm3"...

However you can still render to discreet frames at 1280x720 for express and 1920x1080 for pro. That is still a great deal but being able to stream high resolution content is one of the things that makes this the killer app. In other words why should I produce content and sell it to the Discovery channel when I stream this content over the internet myself? If my content is decent and I can draw a large audience then I can reap rewards in advertising revenue or I can have a subscription based revenue.

One of the cool things about this software is the way in which it lends itself to advertising. The viewer can stop the video at any point and click on a "Hot Spot" which takes them to the advertiser's website. This is much less annoying than the flashing banners and product placement schemes every one hates.

Like I said this app changes the landscape pretty dramatically. I'm am usually not known as an early adopter of technology but I am onboard for this one.

Steamthrower
05-18-2008, 07:42 AM
All very interesting, but I'm still really liking our current shoot which is using a handful of Arris.

It's the same thing as using an old tube amp on an ancient electric guitar. The sound quality's worse than a new electric going through a digital box, but there's just something about it that sounds incredible...incredibly real and authentic.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 07:49 AM
To be quite honest... I looked at the website and their current demos didn't really blow me away... to the contrary. It basically looks like a bad automated morph (from a purely visual aspect). And some of those morphs are quite bad (i.e. bangs of hair fading out instead of actually moving to the position on the "other" image etc...).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 08:23 AM
Yes but i was also thinking about the intergration side of things
It's much easier to develop in the audio world because of the standards
For instance VST

VST unfortunately only goes so far. Great for intruments and filters/effects... but, for example, no use for automation.

This is also an attempt for a standard for compositing packages: http://openfx.sourceforge.net/

I suppose a distinction must be made between new "effects" (for a lack of a more descriptive word) - which tend to be one trick ponies - and truly revolutional changes which usually happen together with the revamp of a package or the emergence of a new one (case in point. ZBrush, imho the last major revolution in CG).

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 09:25 AM
All very interesting, but I'm still really liking our current shoot which is using a handful of Arris.

It's the same thing as using an old tube amp on an ancient electric guitar. The sound quality's worse than a new electric going through a digital box, but there's just something about it that sounds incredible...incredibly real and authentic.

I never get between any one and their aesthetic sensibilities. I am and always will be a huge fan of both film and tube amps. :thumbsup: On the other hand this is something different.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 09:46 AM
To be quite honest... I looked at the website and their current demos didn't really blow me away... to the contrary. It basically looks like a bad automated morph (from a purely visual aspect). And some of those morphs are quite bad (i.e. bangs of hair fading out instead of actually moving to the position on the "other" image etc...).

Cheers,
Mike

I haven't seen the samples on the website so I can't really say one way or another what they look like, but what I did see at the seminar goes way beyond morphing. It is easy to make the comparison between the two, but If this were just morphing I wouldn't even bother to post. Morphing is and always be a rather boring one trick pony. This has so much more potential, as I suspect you will see in the future, though you probably will not notice it when you actually do see it.

Titus
05-18-2008, 10:49 AM
rakker16mm:

I think you got trapped by the marketing. I don't think they are doing anything special, aside from doing morphs between "keyframes", this is an old technique and it seems they just automated the process.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 11:44 AM
rakker16mm:

I think you got trapped by the marketing.

Gee thanks :thumbsup:

If you want to write this off as an old trick go ahead, but as I said earlier morphing is a one trick pony. This software does a lot more than morphing. If you wanted to do morphing you can, but you wouldn't really be tapping into the full potential of the software.

As I said in my first post
In some ways this software defies description. Not so much because the things it does are so hard to understand but that in describing what it does people naturally think of other technologies that did something similar but not as well. and I have to say that I was speaking to the subject of morphing specifically when I wrote that.

Before writing this off as me being easily fooled by some clever marketing [ thank you ] I would remind you that you haven't had the benefit of of seeing the creators of this software demonstrate it in front of industry professionals on a large screen at the George Lucas Theatre and then stand there after words to answer questions. These are people who know what morphing is, [ as do I ] and I can tell you that no one would have bothered clap for that old trick.

Titus
05-18-2008, 11:55 AM
Well, the problem is the examples provided by your link are not interesting, actually they are quite boring and they are clearly a sequence of morphed images. If that's how they want to sell this technology, I hope they have good luck.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 11:58 AM
Well, the problem is the examples provided by your link are not interesting, actually they are quite boring and they are clearly a sequence of morphed images. If that's how they want to sell this technology, I hope they have good luck.

There is a huge saving in file size that you would never get with simple morphing. In fact morphing creates larger files than the original. In contrast this software does the deed on the fly in a host program making it possible to send high resolution media over a very small amount of bandwidth. If you think morphing can ever do that please show me. And as I said before that is just one of its trick. I'm sure they will do very well.

Titus
05-18-2008, 12:04 PM
Actually you have to show me how this technology works. Have you seen the examples?

Maybe all the gizmos involved are impressing, but the result.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 12:16 PM
Actually you have to show me how this technology works. Have you seen the examples?

Maybe all the gizmos involved are impressing, but not the result.

Look you can throw apples if you want. No one believed Marco Polo when he said the Chinese used paper for money, but now we us paper for money and sometimes we even use plastic. I don't have to prove anything to any one. I am just sharing something I had an opportunity to experience firsthand. If you think I have the wool pulled over my eyes I can live with that. I can also laugh all the way to the bank and pass your apple cart along the way. Where you see what you think is an old trick, I see the world in a new way.

Titus
05-18-2008, 12:24 PM
If I'm taking the time to download a plug-in, watch all the examples and reply here is because I'm interested in the subject. Don't take it personal, their examples and you simply don't say the same. Please watch the examples and tell me the difference between what we're seen and the demo you had.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 12:33 PM
If I'm taking the time to download a plug-in, watch all the examples and reply here is because I'm interested in the subject. Don't take it personal, their examples and you simply don't say the same. Please watch the examples and tell me the difference between what we're seen and the demo you had.

Unfortunately I don't have the right hardware at the moment to see what is on the website, so I can't make the comparison. I do hope have something to run it on by the end of the month. Until then I am simply basing my opinion on what I saw at the George Lucas Theatre, and that was very impressive. I should also say they did this demo from a laptop which I also find interesting.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 01:18 PM
Until then I am simply basing my opinion on what I saw at the George Lucas Theatre, and that was very impressive.
We can only base our opinion on what we see at the website... and that is less than impressive.

As for morphing being a one trick pony... I'd argue that point. The tech itself is imho very fundamental to 2D CG (especially since a morph is nothing but a series of cleverly done warps - and the later you'd use on an almost daily basis in comositing).

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 01:58 PM
We can only base our opinion on what we see at the website... and that is less than impressive.

As for morphing being a one trick pony... I'd argue that point. The tech itself is imho very fundamental to 2D CG (especially since a morph is nothing but a series of cleverly done warps - and the later you'd use on an almost daily basis in comositing).

Cheers,
Mike

You can do more than one thing with a morph I will grant you that, but it is still in the end simply a morph. It does not help you get your HD content to the viewer even if your content is very beautifully rendered. Why? Because your morphed content is running at 29.97 fps so now to get that content to your web based audience you need to compress the information. How are you going to accomplish that? In most cases you are going to use Sorenson or some other similar compression algorithm and on all but the fastest connections it is still going to take a long time for the content to download before your viewer can see it.

As you know people tend to be a little impatient as they are busy with their lives and if your content takes too long to download they bail before they ever get to see your beautiful movie. This software does the trick on the viewers computer in a host program, so instead of trying to send 29.97 fps down the pipe you are only sending lets say 5 fps with a very small text file between each frame that the software uses to reconstruct the other 25 frames that are missing.

So why should you care? Well it is only going to take one fifth or sixth of the time to send you content to the viewer and you haven't even degraded the signal with compression. Yes there are some flaws but these are being worked on. Besides do you really want to try and make a whole movie using traditional morphing techniques? I don't know about you but I've got better things to do. Besides when you freeze frame on a morph mid morph in most cases it looks like **** because it was meant to be seen in motion. Am I wrong about that? Well I've stopped the video on a lot of films like Matrix and it doesn't hold up to close inspection. In contrast with this software the viewer can stop the video player at any point and see a picture that makes sense. They can then click on Will Smith's sunglasses and that will take them to the advertiser's website and you get paid.

Plus some of the demoes I saw went way beyond what morphing can do. Aesthetically speaking there seems to be some new and interesting territory to explore and in the right hands this software can be something more than a clever means of blending two images on the fly, or of avoiding the vagaries of compression schemes. I hate compression. It is evil. This IMOHO is less evil and possibly very very good if used creatively.

I acknowledge your healthy skepticism but I was treated to some real eye candy, and I plan to use this software creatively to make some of my own.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 02:30 PM
Because your morphed content is running at 29.97 fps so now to get that content to your web based audience you need to compress the information. How are you going to accomplish that? In most cases you are going to use Sorenson or some other similar compression algorithm and on all but the fastest connections it is still going to take a long time for the content to download before your viewer can see it.
So, in this case realtime morhping is used as a compression algorithm. I get that... I just hope it looks a lot better than the samples on the webpage - which are, frankly, awefully bad (and I looked at most of them hoping to spot something that shows the potential).

The proof is in the pudding or so they say... Maybe you go to see the pudding, but the stuff on the site isn't it...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 02:33 PM
So why should you care? Well it is only going to take one fifth or sixth of the time to send you content to the viewer and you haven't even degraded the signal with compression.
Then again, you're not sending the full signal either... just a subset of the original imagery. And unless the final result at the right fps is identical I'd call it lossy (not compressed, as compression doesn't necessarily degrade the signal).

Ceers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 03:11 PM
The proof is in the pudding or so they say... Maybe you go to see the pudding, but the stuff on the site isn't it...

Cheers,
Mike

I hope to make a nice batch of pudding soon ;) Until I have access to an Intel Mac or a PC I just can't say anything about the website, but it probably isn't as impressive as seeing it demoed in real [ FAST ] time on a real big screen using a real small laptop PC. I mean websites in general are rarely all that.

One thing they discussed was that some of the technical difficulties they encountered using this technique is that they are primarily working with 2D images, but that if you are working in 3D many of the problems with hidden lines and occlusions could easily be avoided. Green screen also works out quite well.

I asked whether or not the software can handle motion blur and DOF issues and the answer is kind of interesting. You can take two tack sharp photos and run them through this process, then replace the photos with the ones that have motion blur and DOF effect and it will handle them using the information from the first set.

So if you were using this software to bypass the render farm you would render out only the key frames of your animation. These renders would be a crude approximation of the final photo-real renders you intend to use later. How many per second? I don't know. If there isn't much going on you may be able to get away with one frame for three seconds but for other stuff maybe you want to use more frames to get a more accurate approximation. When you are ready for final you re-render with all of the bells and whistles. Ray tracing, refraction motion blur and so on. Since you are only rendering the keyframes you are saving time that can be put back into doing better quality renders.

Another cool feature is if your client, producer, or director says "Oh I love it, but could you just change the pacing of this one part?" you can say "OK, hang on this will take me about 30 seconds" Seriously.... you don't have to go back and re-render that whole sequence, because in reality it was never rendered into discreet frames to begin with. It is only rendered when we view it. So now that clever piece of software has not only saved you from the render farm it has also saved you from going back to the render farm to fix a last minute change your client would like you to make, and you may have to call the paramedics because their collective chins have hit the floor that hard.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Another cool feature is if your client, producer, or director says "Oh I love it, but could you just change the pacing of this one part?" you can say "OK, hang on this will take me about 30 seconds"
Erm... I say that now and use a retimer. The problems start if the pacing within an animation should change (i.e. change how one object moves, but leave everything as is).

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 03:26 PM
Then again, you're not sending the full signal either... just a subset of the original imagery. And unless the final result at the right fps is identical I'd call it lossy (not compressed, as compression doesn't necessarily degrade the signal).

Ceers,
Mike

While there ARE loss-less compression schemes most streaming content winds up looking like steaming content. Even watching Cable and Satellite TV, I see a lot of banding and other vagaries associated with compression. Yes I too would always prefer to watch pure unadulterated content but until the bandwidth is there, we will always have to respect that some form of compression is a necessary evil. Even DVD's and Blue Ray are not left untouched.

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 03:29 PM
Erm... I say that now and use a retimer. The problems start if the pacing within an animation should change (i.e. change how one object moves, but leave everything as is).

Cheers,
Mike

OK, so how does your retimer work then? Are you dropping frames to make to speed things up and interpolating frames to slow them down, and in the end you still have to get it to the viewer at what ever fps seems most feasible.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 03:40 PM
OK, so how does your retimer work then? Are you dropping frames to make to speed things up and interpolating frames to slow them down, and in the end you still have to get it to the viewer at what ever fps seems most feasible.
Of course I need the final fps, since most media are fixed to a certain fps. Most retimers work by creating a vector field of motion and then interpolating up or down in time... and all have the same issues (occlusion being one of them). Actually, come to think of it... Think of a grid of motion vectors used to morph from one frame to another. And this is old tech, so I really do wonder what new stuff there is on the table.

Because currently their site makes "steaming" video look like 4K uncompressed in comparison.

Then again, there is no point in discussing this any further unless there is a demo we can all look at and discuss. We might as well be discussing two entirely different things here.

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 03:57 PM
Well to some degree I am saying we are actually discussing two or possibly more than two different things.

I do think on some level the principals are similar enough that it makes it hard for people to understand how this technology is really going to change things. However in the fulness time I think changes will be fairly dramatic.

Lightwolf
05-18-2008, 06:50 PM
I do think on some level the principals are similar enough that it makes it hard for people to understand how this technology is really going to change things. However in the fulness time I think changes will be fairly dramatic.
Put it this way... given what is shown to the general public there is nothing to indicate that they are actually pulling it off.
And quite frankly, I can just see too many scenarios of a purely 2D based technology failing (2D in the sense of only having images as sources) or struggling.
And as well all know, demo material is not production material.

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-18-2008, 07:41 PM
Fair enough. However based on what I have actually seen with my own eyes, and granted that is demo material, it looks like they can actually do this now. In any case I don't know of any other software that actually combines all of these features into as few hoops for me to jump through.

Yes you can do some of this with morphing but you still have discreet frames to be compressed at the end of that process and then even after you compress you still don't have the hot linking. I'm really thinking beyond just doing some animation or film work here. I want to be able to stream linked content where my viewer clicks on objects in the scene that they find interesting. As soon as they click the hot spot another .fm3 file starts streaming and they are following an alternate timeline in the story. It's not that that hasn't been tried before either, but in the past such schemes have mostly been successful in video games.

To me this is more than just a compression tool or a morphing tool. At this point I can't really call what I have in mind a movie, animation, e-novel, or graphic novel since it will have aspects of all those things as well as some level of interactivity such as you might find in a video game. This is a good thing since every time I write a story I want to tell it five or six different ways. Even while you are still within one time line you can select an alternate POV. Unlike a game however you are not playing that role.

Yeah... come to think of it I might be crazy but then again every time some one has said that I am, I have always to pull it off. Hopefully this time will be no different.

Lightwolf
05-19-2008, 01:14 AM
I'm really thinking beyond just doing some animation or film work here. I want to be able to stream linked content where my viewer clicks on objects in the scene that they find interesting. As soon as they click the hot spot another .fm3 file starts streaming and they are following an alternate timeline in the story. It's not that that hasn't been tried before either, but in the past such schemes have mostly been successful in video games.

Yup, Quicktime had that feature for ages. I suppose the platform centricity of decent tools and the fact that people need to download QT stopped that from happening on the web.

Cheers,
Mike

rakker16mm
05-19-2008, 01:16 PM
Yup, Quicktime had that feature for ages. I suppose the platform centricity of decent tools and the fact that people need to download QT stopped that from happening on the web.

Cheers,
Mike

Of course these days QT is a lot more ubiquitous and yet QTVR is still not used that much. I think the main two problems are first that in its current form QTVR is just not very useful, and secondly that navigating in that space gives a lot people vertigo.

I have something else in mind which I hope will minimize the vertigo issue. It's a little difficult to explain but it is more like navigating on the Web, and there are also some analogies to Flash animations. Hopefully similarity will work in my favor because I am counting on my audience being able to navigate the media in a way that seems intuitive t them.