Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

discover.store.sony.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#91

Post by talmand »

X4 wrote: post #22
wanda wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird. It's fast on my Thinkpad X201s from aeons ago (running chromium).

I have a 3y old 1.3GHz cpu with integrated graphics only on Gentoo, but it's so smooth, I can't believe it's not a video! How do they make it so smooth? When I click the last page button on the right side, it runs smoothly through all animations, same when happens when I scroll around. Can't wait to see someone make a blog post on: "This is how Sony exploited HTML5 to run Smooth Parallax Effects on their Page". I ran…

They are images being pushed into a canvas element and then they are stepping through them as you fake scroll. Fake scroll, meaning they take over scrolling duties from the browser. Other elements such as the text are layered on top of the canvas and then are parallaxed into/out of view as you scroll.

It's quite a simple and elegant way to do it, other than the incredibly large number of images required to pull it off. You are essentially watching a video frame-by-frame.

As for the smoothness of it, your mileage may vary based on various things to do with your personal setup.

For me it is not smooth on Firefox. It's choppy but still presentable. The experience is much better in Chrome on my Mac.

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#92

Post by cyphunk »

tambourine_man wrote: post #50

Something is wrong when you are selling image quality and your site features blurry artifacted images. The animations are nice, but they are basically doing frame by frame 704 × 396 movie that look terrible when pushed to 1920 wide. Just use a proper video format, which is much more efficient.

I'm curious why the images have artefacts (or pre-loading fuzz)? A year or so ago Andreas Gysin did something very similar http://ertdfgcvb.ch/p2/sm/play/protog3 and for some reason does not have the artefact issue. (code for that here http://ertdfgcvb.com/sequencer/)

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#93

Post by talmand »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #90
talmand wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who buy their electronics that happen to have data caps? They could at least load it all that image data on demand.

I don't think Sony is marketing the products depicted on that site to the folks worried about downloading 50MB.

Well, yeah, that's probably true I suppose.

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#94

Post by leephillips »

larrys wrote: post #78
leephillips wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree: cellphones should be waterproof. One of the two iPhones that I destroyed in 2013 drowned in a waterproof case that was not closed properly, when I took an unexpected swim in the Atlantic. The silver lining was that I discovered Android, which I prefer. Also, I visited the site using a Thinkpad T60, which dates from around 2006 and would not be considered high-end. Using Chrome on Ubuntu, it was pretty smooth -…

"cellphones should be waterproof." It would be nice if they were. But all manufacturing involves design and price tradeoffs. I have a Sony Rx100ii (great camera) and it would be nice if that were waterproof. But it's not and Sony (and others) offer a different camera that is waterproof (but doesn't have the features of the Rx100ii). Any feature adds to cost (or maybe makes something else not practical or not as good)…

Agree completely. In the case of cell phones, what I mean by "should" is that, since we carry them around everywhere, it would be extremely desirable for them to be at least very water resistant, and is downright inconvenient to be obligated to protect them from rain, etc. Worth paying a premium!

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#96

Post by pwpwp »

talmand wrote: post #81
pwpwp wrote: post #53

I don't see any parallax here. Seems like normal 3D triggered by scrolling.

Could you define parallax? Because I see it, as I know it, in several places throughout the page.

"background images move by the camera slower than foreground images" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scrolling

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#97

Post by talmand »

pwpwp wrote: post #96
talmand wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you define parallax? Because I see it, as I know it, in several places throughout the page.

"background images move by the camera slower than foreground images" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scrolling

And you don't see that on this page?

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#99

Post by pwpwp »

talmand wrote: post #97
pwpwp wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"background images move by the camera slower than foreground images" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scrolling

And you don't see that on this page?

Not really, no.

Re: New brand site for Sony uses rendered JPG frames for 3D parallax scrolling

#100

Post by headgasket »

leephillips wrote: post #94
larrys wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"cellphones should be waterproof." It would be nice if they were. But all manufacturing involves design and price tradeoffs. I have a Sony Rx100ii (great camera) and it would be nice if that were waterproof. But it's not and Sony (and others) offer a different camera that is waterproof (but doesn't have the features of the Rx100ii). Any feature adds to cost (or maybe makes something else not practical or not as good)…

Agree completely. In the case of cell phones, what I mean by "should" is that, since we carry them around everywhere, it would be extremely desirable for them to be at least very water resistant, and is downright inconvenient to be obligated to protect them from rain, etc. Worth paying a premium!

I dont think the "Dell marketing" feature/price tradeoff logic applies to the top of the market.

I just want the best tool, period. Since a price point for best device period is well established since the original iphone, and the build cost keeps going down, at one point it is this feature/that feature tradeoff for the next-gen iteration.

I care more for indestructibility for a wearable or quasi-wearable device than for a fingerprint reader that sort of works. And for a better camera that opens at 1.8 or even 1.4 than for 9 grams less in my pocket and 1mm less thickness.

But that's me. I guess the folks at Apple have a better algorithm. I'm really tempted by the xperia tho, just not ready to ditch iOS, although the banning of coinbase got me really close.

Post reply on HN