A NEW SPIN ON FLASH OBJECT VR
by Dave Krick
When an individual encounters something different they categorize and classify what they have encountered based on previous similar experiences. If an individual encounters something new there may be a learning curve applied to the new experience. This is the case with object displays (object photography) designed outside the QuickTime authoring environment. Some individuals are resistant to change and do not like anything that deviates from the expected. Presently there is an increase in object displays designed to be played back in a non-QuickTime environment. Some of these displays mimic QuickTime controls while other displays provide different methods of control.
Everyone familiar with objects displays compares and contrasts any object designed in different playback modality to how the object was controlled within a QuickTime environment. This is a logical process because the QuickTime environment was the long time standard for object displays. A good analogy of this debacle would be an American driving in Britain, who may have some apprehension about driving on the left side of the road and might make the comment that driving on the left side of the road is idiotic, while the converse might be true of a Brit driving on American roads.
Is the QuickTime methodology of clicking and dragging the mouse over an object to initiate object rotation really the most convenient and user-friendly method of control? What if the viewer of the object is on a laptop with no mouse? QuickTime does offer keyboard controls and zoom in and zoom out features but most designers do not tell the end user that these are available. I am surprised how many designers are unaware of these QuickTime features.
Does an object display really need to spin at different rates of speed, zoom in and zoom out, and rotate in both directions? To answer these questions it would depend on the object display being designed and the preferences of your client. Oh yes, the client, the person paying the bill. Wouldn't it be great to offer the client a wide range of controls used to operate their object display and allow them a choice of controls to pick and choose from? Clients and end users alike both love choices; someone once wrote, "Life is all about choices", and offering clients choices makes you, the designer, look more professional.
When designing an object display for Internet usage the first consideration is file size. You do not want to force the end user in today's immediate gratification society to wait on a huge download. The two main factors that contribute to file size are how large (height and width of the individual images) do you want the object to be displayed and how many points of perspective (total number of images) are in the display.
A larger image conveys a much better message than having to squint to look at details of a smaller image. The larger the size of the individual images composing the object display the larger the overall file size of the completed display will be. To combat a large file size you can use fewer points of perspective in the display.
Many object displays use a 36-point perspective (36 images of the object photographed at every 10 degrees of rotation). This provides a nice smooth rotational playback speed but produces a large file size, too large for many Internet applications. A 36-point perspective is optimal for a CD/DVD or in house (Intranet) object displays. If you decrease the points of perspective to 24 (one image every 15 degrees), 18 (one image every 20 degrees) or 12 (one image every 30 degrees) you can reduce overall file size by 33%, 50% and 66%, respectively.
In most cases the number of perspective points (total number of images) in the object display determines the rotational speed of the display. Decreasing the number of perspective points produces a faster rate of rotation (24 images in a linear display can be displayed faster than 36 images in the same display).
To summarize, by decreasing the points of perspective (number of images in the display) you decrease overall file size while at the same time making rotational speed of the object proportionally faster. For example: a 24-point perspective object display will have a 33% smaller file size (download faster) but will rotate 33% faster than a 36-point perspective display.
An object display that rotates too fast can be detrimental to the aesthetics of the display. Many end users complain that the object spins to fast and out of control. This is a huge problem, but a well-designed object display can overcome this dilemma by providing better controls for the end user to operate the display ensuring an exciting object display at a reduced file size.
A Different Spin on Objects showcases a few examples that can be employed to control how an object display functions. In most cases, any combination of the controls can be put into the same object display. The object is a vector based graphic in a 19-point perspective to reduce file size. A 19-point perspective was chosen because, I am told repeatedly by other designers, that an even number of perspective points that is some factor of 36 must be used. Nothing could be further from the truth, as long as all the points of perspective are evenly distributed around the circumference of the objects path. While going over the examples, ask yourself what controls are the simplest to use.
Visit Dave Krick's website, jux2position.com
Email: jux2position@idcomm.com
|  | |
| The purpose of this banner is to raise funds for a new VR community project VRMag will launch in a few months.
| |
