W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > October 2008

Re: video use-case

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 22:55:06 +0200
Message-Id: <080B2CEE-5B15-48CB-97C2-ED4E160774B8@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>


On 1-Oct-2008, at 17:42 , Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> That would be the case for the use cases you explicitly mention here,
>> but there are other multiplexed videos where this isn't the case,  
>> think
>> of movies in airline  cut/normal cut/directors cut. This means that
>> timestamps become messy: either "00h:02m:00s:00f" becomes ambiguous
>> (could be different points depending on track selection), or  
>> arithmetic
>> on timestamps becomes impossible (depending on track selection
>> "00h:02m:00s:00f" may or may not be 60 seconds after "00h:01m:00s: 
>> 00f".
>
> interesting example, indeed.
> But, I would rather consider the different "cuts" to be different  
> videos.
>
> Indeed, the timeline is, in my view, a fundamental aspect of a video.


Agreed. But this triggered another question: are we interested in the  
timestamps in the movie? If we ask for a segment of video starting at  
30s, do we expect the timestamp of the first frame to be "30s"? Do we  
expect it to be "0s"? Do we expect nothing at all? This is going to be  
important for client-side creation of URLs for selecting subparts of  
videos.

Sylvia, do Annodex temporal URLs say anything about this?

--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 20:55:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:30 GMT