Universal 3D File Format In The Works

telstar writes "The Register is reporting that more than 30 companies are working together to define a new file format intended to serve as a universal 3D file format. The new file format will be named the 'Universal 3D Format', or U3D. According to the article, they hope to make the new format as standard as MP3 has become for audio, and JPEG has become for 2D images. Interesting that they would choose two lossy media formats as models for comparison."

Comments

MP3 and JPEG

[Boing]

The lossiness of MP3 and JPEG was only relevant because it allowed the actual files to become small enough to transmit over slow connections and fit on small hard drives. Additionally, while they may be lossy, the "lost" information goes completely unnoticed by the end-user, 99.99% of the time. If they come up with a convenient way of storing 3D information that is "lossy" but doesn't lose anything that will be missed, then more power to them.

Additionally, the demand for small files, and therefore for MP3 and JPEG, draws on preexisting "content" sets that are enormous; all the audio data ever recorded (including in analog media), and all the static, 2D visual data ever recorded (including photos, texts, drawings, etc). By comparison, there are currently relatively few recordings of true 3D data; and the present uses of that recorded data are so specialized that a general file format would probably be insufficient anyway.

So the day that Wal-mart starts selling digital cameras that laser-scan the whole room and render a complete 3D model, and the day they start selling holographic projectors for those 3D models, at prices that are reasonable for personal use, then there will be a market for a generic 3D file format.

Re:Microsoft's motive

[Minna Kirai]

Microsoft did adopt an open file format: XML.

XML hardly deserves to be called a file format. To have any meaning, the term "file format" must be usable as a way to discuss what files a program is capable of understanding. If two programs are known to both use MP3 or both use JPG, then one can predict with high certainty that they are compatible on the file level.

But if all we know is that the programs both read XML data, then we actually know nothing about what they actually do.

It would be possible for Microsoft to use XML for everything, but still not make life any easier for outsiders trying to achieve compatibility.

We wouldn't claim "binary" is a file format, and we shouldn't call "XML" one either.

Saddam Hussein may not have been an imminent threat, but then again neither was Hitler.

By the time the USA took up arms against Hitler, he certainly wasn't imminent anymore- he was active. He'd already invaded 6 different US allies by the time they decided to join the fight against Germany.

Re:Microsoft's motive

[prisoner-of-enigma]

XML hardly deserves to be called a file format.

Regardless of whether or not you wish to deem it an acceptable file format, it is a file format that would allow anyone to open anywhere on any platform using any software, assuming that said software could properly parse the XML file. And the ability to parse that data is assured, since the file format is documented by Microsoft -- documents open to anyone and everyone, free of charge.

By the time the USA took up arms against Hitler, he certainly wasn't imminent anymore- he was active. He'd already invaded 6 different US allies by the time they decided to join the fight against Germany.

One is taken to wondering just how different things might've been if we'd shown more spine earlier as opposed to picking up the pieces later. Hundreds of thousands of lives might've been saved if Hitler had just known the Allies meant business. Instead, we sat around and let him get away with one international violation after another, each one emboldening him to take the next step. Churchill once said "At one point, a memo would've stopped Hitler." We stopped Saddam, but now we're being castigated for it. I imagine the same naysayers would've been present had we put a stop to Nazism back when it was in a nascent stage.

Your argument that Hitler was "active" gives lie to the silliness of avoiding pre-emptive warfare. Which is smarter, fighting a war when your enemy is weak or waiting until he is strong, bold, and has the initiative? Naysayers cling to the idea that pre-emptive war is folly. It's pity they haven't learned from history, because if they had their way, we'd all be doomed to repeat it.

Re:Microsoft's motive

[dolphinling]

Problem is, Hussein was never going to be "strong, bold, and have the initiative." He was the dictator of a small, poverty-ridden, country in which there were (at least) three very opposed different populations. Hitler was "dictator" of a larger, already strong, country, that was in a depression but by no means third-world, and was able to harness the emotions and power of practically the whole country to get what he wanted.

End result: Hitler was a threat to the US. Saddam wasn't. Hitler would have, eventually, gotten enough power to defeat the US if we hadn't joined the war in time. Saddam would have just sat there on his throne, killing off a few people (which a) we could have prevented in ways other than war, and b) was AFAIK fewer than are dying now due to the terrorists that weren't there before but are now and the worsened living conditions) and not posing any threat at all to us.

And as to pre-emptive war, the problem with it is that it sets a precedent for any other country that wants to start a pre-emptive war too. Because of that, there are a lot more wars total. And unless you happen to like war, I'm sure you'll agree that that's a bad thing.