From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Future Entertainment Show, London
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:03:21 GMT
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Flying Cat, Inc.

In article <kdarling.722051540@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> kdarling@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes:
>Farrukh Alavi writes:
>> The CDTV Photo CD demo wasn't running off a Compaq - it was running off a
>> CDTV. Both the CDTV and the DCTV box required to view Photo CD files were
>> available for sale. The only thing preventing Commodore from promoting
>> Photo CD compatibility (within the context of the DCTV box) was the
>> licensing arrangement (Kodak was willing, Philips wasn't).
> 
>That's a great story, but it seems to ignore a few critical points.
>In order to be promoted as a full "Photo CD" player, there's a lot more
>involved than just reading some picture files off the disc.
>
>The CD-ROM drive would first need to be able to handle multisession discs.

Kevin, you seem somewhat biased on this.  Usually, you seem more fair.

Kodak supports the concept of Photo CD access that doesn't handle
multisession.  I'd been assuming that was for three reasons :

	1) because most computer CDROM drives out there don't handle 
	   multisession

	2) because it took a real long time for the multisession
	   specs to be finalized and published

	3) because I believe there CD-I machines released long before 
	   the multisession specs were finalized and published.

Do _you_ know _for a fact_ that all CD-I players support multisession
access ?  (I've been assuming at least the older professional units
did not support multisession.)

>The player *must* also use Kodak display algorithms, it (probably) needs
>a Bridge Disc (modified ISO9660) file manager, and (probably) will need
>to be able to use the coming expanded Photo CD menuing/audio features...
>which is handled on Kodak players via a custom ASIC, and on CD-I players
>by including a CD-I program on each Photo CD disc.
>
>So it would seem that CDTV didn't meet Kodak specs as a "Photo CD player."

Actually, it seems you have no information on the subject;  your
conclusions are basically CD-I biased.  If you have any 
statements from either Kodak or Philips on this, you should post
them.  Unbacked assertions won't prove anything.

>There's already source code for that posted on the net ;-)  Unfortunately,
>Kodak says anything not licensed from them can't be called "Photo CD", and
>since "Photo CD" covers more than just their file formats they have a point.
>Which is why I think we should just call it something else and have fun :-)

Kodak claims many patents on the PhotoCD file format conversions.
While most would probably vanish if tested in court, the testing
is not what _I'd_ consider fun.

(personal opinion:  they are doing so to make sure the image
quality of anything that displays Photo CD meets their standards,
rather than the usual corporate desire to own a market by any means possible)

>kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> <76703.4227@compuserve.com>

			andy
-- 
andy finkel		andy@cbmvax.commodore.com

"Unix is the Operating System of the future, and always will be."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.