ILDA files, Frames or points per second

[muppet]

Hello everybody,

can somebody explain me what the standard is of playing ILDA files:

In Frames per second or Points per second

Some ILDA file are playing well in FPS, others in PPS .....
I can't figure out the real playing speed in the ILDA documentation, so if anybody knows it for sure, please let me know.

You can reply this message also in German.

Kind regards,

Alfons Roerdink

[patrick]

There is no exact answer to your question as everyone seems to keep it his way. The best thing for you to do it is to always use the way that works best.

Patrick

[pangolinlaser]

Speaking as past Chairman of the ILDA Technical Committee, let me remind everyone that the ILDA format was really only meant for one thing -- "data interchange". It is merely a way of getting image data from one software system to another. It is not really meant to be a format that would be used by people in their systems and it is really not a very good format for that purpose.

Best regards,

William Benner
Pangolin Laser Systems

[jojo]

Well, the ILDA-format is not an output format. And it is a relic from the stoneage.
But it is the ONLY standard worldwide. And this is the reason why many companies use it for their displays. And the only available ressource of laser shows is using ILDA-files.
Why is it not possible for ILDA to define a new data format, including data interchange AND show output?
There is a growing market of small laser systems and stand alone displays.
And every small company uses its own dataformat. And needs a special software to make the shows!
This is blocking the whole progress in laser industry.
Why is it not possible to bring some manufacturers together at ILDA and define a new standard?
I think the whole industry would benefit from this.
But this will only work when also a market leader like pangolin stands behind it.
The problem is, that Pangolin itself does not support a given standard in the way it would be necessary.
An example: The Intro version of LD did NOT support ILDA-export of shows (don't know if it does now).
It makes no sense to define a data interchange format and the most used software platform does not support it. This is like if Corel Draw would not support .BMP or .JPG import/export.
Laser show industry compared to Computer industry is like having 35 different PC-Systems running 25 different OS and every harddisk has its own hardware interface and every floppy disk has its own size.
THIS is the BIGGEST problem of laser show industry!
<img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

[muppet]

I have build an ILDA file parser that is written in conformity with the specs of the original ILDA document.

After that i found out that a lot of .ILD files are not really 100% compatible, so sometimes
i must 'bypass' the specs (for e.g. starting the first frame with number 10 en stead of the original frame number 1 (or was it 0, nevermind)) But that is not very important.

More important is the interpretation of the content of the .ILD file, now i know that ILD files are not
speed depended, it means that a .ILD player must play the data at a configured speed and timing interval (so when i have the best output result) ?

I'm brainstorming (at a forum, yes it is possible <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) and is there no logical way to 'decribe' the play behavior of the .ILD file ?

- You can play a ILD file with a fixed framerate and variable points (depending of the number of points in that current frame)
- You can play a ILD file with a fixed point draw speed so the frames are just variable. A frame is than
not more than a package of a number of points.....

I think that, looking to electronic components, a fixed point speed is more realistic to use.

I also think that a global data laser file must contain more than only points, colors and frames.

Compare it with a BMP or GIF (graphical INTERCHANGE format) file that contains only points and colors, all viewers could not handle it. Some viewers will project the pucture 1:1, others like the size of the current window or the position of the mouse on my mouse pad .....

So a set of frames with a variable number of points in it (a .ILD file) loses the information HOW to play the frames.... And that is the missing part in the .ILD file

Is it not possible to extend the current .ILD file with extra information leaving the original structure in tact? So older ILDA players could play the .ILD file, but the extension will help players with extension support to play it like it should be.

If anybody has a good idea, please post it !!!

Kind regards,

Alfons Roerdink

[jojo]

I think it is not clever trying to expand the 'old' format.
A new dataformat should be origanized in another way.
It should include ALL possible data like a modern multimedia format. It should be a very powerful format to allow a system to playback even lasershow, lightshow, sound and multimedia.
AND it must be possible for slow embedded systems to pick out only the needed data, for example just lasershow data, in a fast and efficient way.
I built a hardware ILDA-Player using a microcontroller and the I know about the problems reading the current format. But like Bill Benner said: It is NOT a show format!
About the speed:
It is a problem. To output a show with the right speed, you have to vary the pointrate kpps AND vary the framerate. Some shows repeat every frame many times and also vary the repetition of frames inside the same show! Because this information is not part of ILDA-format, it is not possible to get the same results like using a showsoftware. A showsoftware stores its timing information in an extra way.
Keep in mind that laserframes are different duration in time, not like videoframes, where you only need to change the framerate.
Future formats should include timing informations for output and synchronization as well.

[pangolinlaser]

Hi JoJo,

I am afraid that I disagree with you on a few points. Although reasonable people can disagree, I do not believe that "the biggest problem with this industry" has anything to do with file formats. I think that if you gathered a number of industry pundits to discuss "what is the biggest problem with this industry", some of the opinions might be:
1) Safety regulations and their enforcement
2) Expense of the lasers, scanners and other equipment
3) Level of knowledge needed to operate the equipment and put on a show
4) Saturation in the marketplace, both from an equipment and show producer standpoint
5) The relatively slow scan speed of mechanical scanners and thus, relatively low information density
6) etc...

ILDA could conceivably take on the task of defining a new standard, but one thing that you must realize is that standards bodies operate verrrryyy sllooooowwwllyyy. This is true of any standards body. For example, take a look at DMX-512. ESTA took it over from USITT with the desire to make it an official ANSI standard. They have been working on it for nearly 5 years AND IT STILL ISN'T A STANDARD YET!!!! If ILDA was to take on the task of coming up with a new standard, it would take at least one year of debate and one year of testing and one year of approval. It is far faster (and arguably better) for one company to make their own standard and just go with it. This is what Pangolin and New Method and MediaLas and LAStudio and everyone else does. Really the ILDA format is only for "interchange" so that data can be transported from one system to the next. For this purpose it does work.

As for the reason why LD2000 Intro does not export shows to ILDA -- LD2000 Intro does export frames to ILDA (remember -- that data interchange thing?) but not complete shows. The reason is because exporting a show as a series of ILDA frames is something that is done moreso by professional show producers for playback on lower-cost hardware and such. Remember, since LD2000 Intro is the lowest cost system, it was really designed for people who are not really professional show producers as such, but instead end-users in discos, planetariums, trade shows, some playback applications, etc. Sure, it is very powerful with a full complement of frame and show creation tools, and it also comes with our full professional show and frame library as well. But let's face it... we chose the word "Intro" for a reason -- it as an introduction to the LD2000 system. For those who want to add Show and AVI export capability to Intro, this can be done with our a-la-carte feature scheme for $300.

But this brings me to another question. Every once in a while I get into a private email exchange with someone here on LaserFreak who feels that the "hobbiest market" remains untapped and that if we had a system that would appeal to hobbiests at some hobbiest-level price, it would be popular. OK, so let's hear what kind of features you would like to see and what kind of price tag???

(I fear that in asking this question people will be asking for a PRO system for a less-than-INTRO price... but let's hear it.)

Bill

[jojo]

Hi Bill,

With the biggest problem of the industry, I did not mean only fileformat, but the completely incompatibility of laser systems in hardware and software.

The other problems you listed are also important, but I think they are not so far from a solution.
1. Safety is discussed since years also at ILDA and companies are spending much time and money to make their systems more safe.
2. I think that expense of the components only is a problem of the highend market. In the lowcost or midrange market, prices are going down fast. Look at green DPSS-Lasers and small displays.
3. It is in the hands of the companies to make their systems useable for "dummies".
4. I don't see a saturation in the lowcost and midrange market. This is a problem of the highend market.
5. Naturally, it takes time to develop faster scanners etc. but progress is going on and there is lot of work for all companies in the future.

I know that defining a standard takes long time. The question is, WHEN people decide to START.
If there is no start, there will be no result. I think the minimum to do is just to discuss the possibility of a new standard and bringing some ideas of different companies together.
The 'quick and dirty' way companies are going until today is okay for short time profit, but also costs much energy. Many companies have to redesign their own standards just to develop a new product.
And in many cases, there is an incompatibility also between products of the same company.
I think the reasons that many people are afraid of buying a laser system are 1.) that they have problems to integrate the system in their current show-equipment and 2.) that there are no ressources for compatible shows or graphics.
A standard would help companies to develop products faster and give users a huge pool of ressources for shows sequences and frames etc.
When you look for example at the 3D-animation sector, you get thousands of models, backgrounds, shades and sequences in the internet. Sure, they use 3 or 4 different formats, but every 3D software can import/export these formats. And all these formats are open and documented.
Not in laser industry, where the dataformat often is the only way to secure a product against piratry and competition.

Pangolin software is a quasi-standard. But the name stands for professional use.
All non-professional users of small displays have to look for other software just to bring a small show into a display. The director of a museum will not pay for a PRO or consult a laser professional just to make a small laser sequence for a stand alone projector as an attraction. And even an artist will not do so just to add a laserdisplay to his sculptures. They both would pay $2500 for the display but not another $2000 for software to animate some points and lines and blow the stuff into the display.
These examples happened in reality and are not fantasy.

Even when I will be kicked out from this board now..
When asking hobbiests about the price, you will have to give it away for free

An alle Miteleser: Sorry, dass ich in Englisch poste, aber Bill ist einer der kompetentesten Diskussionspartner und ich möchte Ihm die Übersetzung ersparen.

[pangolinlaser]

Hi JoJo,

Your points are well taken. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I am flexible and I am willing to give them further consideration... Also, I don't think anyone would or should be kicked off the board... all opinions are useful and valid points of view...

Anyway as I said in my last post, I see some constant interest on the low end (what you called non-professional) but I still don't have an answer to my question. What kind of system would be desired and at what price point?

Also, one more question. What kind of scanners are people using on the low-end?

Bill