SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS

We present the results of a comparative analysis between the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) and MPEG-4 BInary Format for Scenes (BIFS). SMIL is a language developed by the W3C consortium for expressing media synchronization among objects of various media types. MPEG-4 BIFS is th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: CHEOK, Lai-Tee, Eleftheriadis, Alexandros
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2002
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/1916
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/2915/viewcontent/EE2002_02_111.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sis_research-2915
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sis_research-29152018-07-13T03:16:42Z SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS CHEOK, Lai-Tee Eleftheriadis, Alexandros We present the results of a comparative analysis between the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) and MPEG-4 BInary Format for Scenes (BIFS). SMIL is a language developed by the W3C consortium for expressing media synchronization among objects of various media types. MPEG-4 BIFS is the scene description scheme of MPEG-4, an international standard for communicating interactive audiovisual scenes. They are both facilities for representing and synchronizing multimedia content, and have a wide range of support for interactivity, animation and object composition features, etc. We compare their scope and purposes, the level of support for the multimedia features and investigate the degree of complexity of each of their representation formats. This comparison study is primarily based on SMIL 2.0 and version 3 of BIFS. The analysis shows that although MPEG-4 has better support for 3D features, on the things that both can do, SMIL appears to be better and easier to use. SMIL also provides better timing, animation controls, more transition effects, and supports keyboard events which are missing in MPEG-4. In addition, although MPEG-4 has been defined with the aim of standardizing many aspects of a multimedia streaming application, there are no well-defined interfaces in place for its streaming mechanism. 2002-02-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/1916 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/2915/viewcontent/EE2002_02_111.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School Of Computing and Information Systems eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University MPEG SMIL synchronization scene description authoring interactivity multimedia applications Software Engineering
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic MPEG
SMIL
synchronization
scene description
authoring
interactivity
multimedia applications
Software Engineering
spellingShingle MPEG
SMIL
synchronization
scene description
authoring
interactivity
multimedia applications
Software Engineering
CHEOK, Lai-Tee
Eleftheriadis, Alexandros
SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
description We present the results of a comparative analysis between the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) and MPEG-4 BInary Format for Scenes (BIFS). SMIL is a language developed by the W3C consortium for expressing media synchronization among objects of various media types. MPEG-4 BIFS is the scene description scheme of MPEG-4, an international standard for communicating interactive audiovisual scenes. They are both facilities for representing and synchronizing multimedia content, and have a wide range of support for interactivity, animation and object composition features, etc. We compare their scope and purposes, the level of support for the multimedia features and investigate the degree of complexity of each of their representation formats. This comparison study is primarily based on SMIL 2.0 and version 3 of BIFS. The analysis shows that although MPEG-4 has better support for 3D features, on the things that both can do, SMIL appears to be better and easier to use. SMIL also provides better timing, animation controls, more transition effects, and supports keyboard events which are missing in MPEG-4. In addition, although MPEG-4 has been defined with the aim of standardizing many aspects of a multimedia streaming application, there are no well-defined interfaces in place for its streaming mechanism.
format text
author CHEOK, Lai-Tee
Eleftheriadis, Alexandros
author_facet CHEOK, Lai-Tee
Eleftheriadis, Alexandros
author_sort CHEOK, Lai-Tee
title SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
title_short SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
title_full SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
title_fullStr SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
title_full_unstemmed SMIL vs MPEG-4 BIFS
title_sort smil vs mpeg-4 bifs
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2002
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/1916
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sis_research/article/2915/viewcontent/EE2002_02_111.pdf
_version_ 1770571683996893184