On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Kieran Farr <kieran.farr@gmail.com> wrote: > > > - The concept of a restricted Video Layer that supports existing > web-based video DRM schemes would be a reasonable solution for most legacy > publishers looking to get their "feet wet" with VR. I think this is a great > idea and would kickstart many WebVR enabled sites -- especially if it can > piggyback nicely off of the HTML5 video element's existing "goodness". > Those that wish to make use of more advanced WebVR / 3D pipeline features > would need to weigh that against their contractual rights for content > access. > > I think that's pretty useless, for the same reasons that Facebook/Oculus felt it was pretty useless, and a few reasons on top of that. - No mipmapping (hurts viewing fidelity overall, but also disables ambient light effects) - No anisotropy (hurts viewing fidelity) - No syncing of video content and WebVR content - No audio integration with anything attempting to do spatial audio - No way to handle subtitles and the like in a VR friendly fashion (at a proper place maybe outside the video frame, with a proper VR oriented text rendering solution) - No shading/integration with the rendering pipeline. That also means no effects on the video surface used for UI or aesthetic reasons For anybody unfamiliar with the need to read out textures for rendering, please see this WebGL experiment: http://alteredqualia.com/three/examples/webgl_deferred_arealights_texture.html Ultimately, if you want good applications, those applications need to be able to work with the data they're supposed to operate with. If you can't, what you get is crap. This is a recurring trend throughout all DRM. It degrades user-experience for legitimate uses, while it does nothing to prevent illegitimate uses. The race to "ultimate DRM" is a race to quality rock bottom.
Received on Monday, 10 July 2017 18:55:34 UTC