[M4IF Discuss] \

[Ben Waggoner]

Adam,
    I'd hope everyone would at least use ISMA Profile 1, which gives
Advanced Simple Visual, and a maximum resolution of 352x288.  It's in the
ballpark of competitive against Big Three solutions today, if you don't need
high resolution.
    I hope we'll see some Scalable profiles become available sooner rather
than later.
Ben Waggoner
Interframe Media <http://www.interframemedia.com>
Digital Video Compression Consulting, Training, and Encoding
on 2/6/02 9:10 AM, Adam Siegel at adrockus   earthlink.net wrote:
> Even once MPEG-4 is supported by the leading players and servers, it is
> still not clear to me that supporting exclusively MPEG-4 will provide
> adequate cost savings or other benefits over supporting a combination of 2-3
> of the Big 3, which is the current status quo - maybe sites with really
> large amounts of content will save on storage costs, but is this
> significant? Sure, it is nicer to not have to make the user choose a format
> or try to detect the user's installed players. But are these benefits enough
> to justify the decision to move to a new format, buy new servers and
> encoders, make the necessary changes to asset management and publishing
> systems, etc? Not to mention these licensing issues...Then there will
> probably also be inconsistencies in the way the Big 3 support MPEG-4 so we
> will be limited to the functionality supported by all. I really want to see
> MPEG-4 happen, but I am afraid it will take a few years for the market to be
> ready and for MPEG-4 to have a broad impact on the Web.