Adams Platform
Brendan Tregear
The little news that has been released on Adam's Platform in
Australia has generated incredible business and public interest, but
still we know so little about it. For those who don't know, Adam Clark
from Melbourne, Victoria has claimed that he has generated an algorithm
that:
- sends full-motion streaming video (768*576) 25
frames per second on a normal PC computer without dedicated hardware,
through a normal 28.8KBps modem with 22KHz audio
- was able to compress a 25Gb .avi video file to
less than 35Mb (1000:1!)
These fantastic claims have been substantiated. The Australian
newspaper, which has some credibility, has published three articles on
the issue, and the journalist involved has confirmed he has seen it
working. Also, Adams Clark lawyer is rapidly securing patent rights for
the algorithm across the world. Rumours abound also that Adam Clark has
been approached by such heavyweights as Apple and Microsoft.
My question is, can anyone out there either validate or dissprove
these claims. Does anyone else know more about this amazing break
through?
Brendan Tregear
ltre...@camtech.net.au
Wouter Dijkslag
Hello,
On 30 Jun 1998 03:50:23 GMT, Brendan Tregear <ltre...@camtech.net.au>
wrote:
> - sends full-motion streaming video (768*576) 25
>frames per second on a normal PC computer without dedicated hardware,
>through a normal 28.8KBps modem with 22KHz audio
> - was able to compress a 25Gb .avi video file to
>less than 35Mb (1000:1!)
So? Anybody can write a program that does this. What about picture
quality? If I compress everything down to 1 pixel (black or white),
look at the size and streaming of that!
> My question is, can anyone out there either validate or dissprove
>these claims. Does anyone else know more about this amazing break
>through?
>
>Brendan Tregear
>ltre...@camtech.net.au
>
Greetings,
Wouter Dijkslag
wo...@wody.demon.nl
Maynard Handley
In article <6n9n9v$650$1...@scream.auckland.ac.nz>, Brendan Tregear
<ltre...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
> The little news that has been released on Adam's Platform in
> Australia has generated incredible business and public interest, but
> still we know so little about it. For those who don't know, Adam Clark
> from Melbourne, Victoria has claimed that he has generated an algorithm
> that:
>
> - sends full-motion streaming video (768*576) 25
> frames per second on a normal PC computer without dedicated hardware,
> through a normal 28.8KBps modem with 22KHz audio
> - was able to compress a 25Gb .avi video file to
> less than 35Mb (1000:1!)
>
> These fantastic claims have been substantiated. The Australian
> newspaper, which has some credibility, has published three articles on
> the issue, and the journalist involved has confirmed he has seen it
> working. Also, Adams Clark lawyer is rapidly securing patent rights for
> the algorithm across the world. Rumours abound also that Adam Clark has
> been approached by such heavyweights as Apple and Microsoft.
>
> My question is, can anyone out there either validate or dissprove
> these claims. Does anyone else know more about this amazing break
> through?
Yeah right. Fraud doesn't exist. COS and such MacOS emulators were going
to ship anyday. Jules managed to compress stock exchanged data by 10
million to 1 or whatever it was.
Let's see:
+ Patents sought. So what? When the patents are granted and we get to see
the algorithm, we can decided. People can seek and obtain patents for
anti-gravity rays---the patent office is not a technology screening
agency, it is a legal agency that cares that the form is filled out
properly, not the contents of the form.
+ Journalist saw it so it must be true. What exactly did the journalist see?
Was the journalist allowed to take how a copy of the magic software,
compress his/her own choice of AVI file, copy that compressed AVI file by
zip disk to a totally different machine, and reconsitute the result?
Anything else is of little interest. Journalist saw streaming video coming
over what was supposedly a 28.8kbps modem. How exactly was the nature of
this modem establish? What's to say there was not a covert channel
involved.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see much of that here.
If the algorithm is so cool, why hasn't a freeware trial app (say allowing
5 compress/recompress operations) been released so we can all try it out?
Is it that old stand-by "wicked people will reverse-engineer the assembly
code and rob me"?
Maynard
--
My opinion only
Tim Iverson
In article <handleym-300...@handma.apple.com>,
Maynard Handley <hand...@ricochet.net> wrote:
|Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see much of that here.
|If the algorithm is so cool, why hasn't a freeware trial app (say allowing
|5 compress/recompress operations) been released so we can all try it out?
|Is it that old stand-by "wicked people will reverse-engineer the assembly
|code and rob me"?
|
|Maynard
Well, I agree completely that the claims are likely untrue and
probably fraudulent. However, if you wish to obtain an international
patent, you cannot have already released a product containing the
invention. So, if it's real, any form of release without a vicious
NDA would be out of the question.
BTW, I'm not a lawyer, this is just what my lawyer told me -- your
lawyer *will* tell you something entirely different (that's how they
get paid ;).
- Tim Iverson
iverson@cisco-com
rm
well a patent can only be obtained for something that's not logic or evident
from the viewpoint of the existing technology at this moment, so there has
to be 'something' new in it
rm
Ben Lai
The opinions expressed here are mine and not of my employer.
Dear all,
I recently saw Adam's 1000 to 1 compression at work. He brought in his
Apple Compatible Computer, (which had no disk light) and monitor into
work to show us this truly impressive video and audio compression. He
setup his machine took a floppy out and copied a file into a folder on
his desktop. He proceeded to play the file which appeared on the
attached TV. After the demo had played for 1 minute and 8 seconds I
asked to see a list of the top 10 largest files on his hard disk. He
did a search for files that were over 60 Meg, which produce nothing when
I suggest he look for files that were over 10 meg he refused and said
that his application was 60 meg and didn't want me to see it's name as
it would give away his secret. Some interesting things to note about
this 60 Meg application:
1. He claims his program is written in C++, I've been writing in C++ for
10 years and have never even come close to writing a 60 Meg
application. He would have to write an enormous amount of code to even
come close to this, Netscape source comes to 73 Meg from which you get a
9 Meg executable. He would have to write about 486.67 meg of source to
generate a 60 meg application. Most programs use DLLs and try to keep
the application small, it saves on compile time and simplifies the
program structure.
2. A 1 minute 8 seconds AVI would be around 60 Megs.
3. If his program is 60 megs, such a sophisticated and complex algorithm
couldn't be revealed in an application name. And even if it could why
doesn't he simply rename it?
4. He checked first on whether the file finder actually display the file
size, which is something a programmer who just wrote a 60 meg
application would surely know.
Some technical point about his compression:
1. According to Adam each frame is unique and doesn't build on the next
or previous. This means that each data packet he receives is discrete.
i.e. a 28,800 bps modem will transfer 2,880 bytes per seconds ( 8 bits
per byte 1 stop 1 start). This works out to be 115.2 bytes per frame.
A normal frame is:
768 x 576 x 3 = 1,327,104 Bytes per frame for image data
22254 8-bit linear unsigned mono ( actually it's 22254.5454Hz misquoted
22 kHz audio we get)
Historical note: 22254.5454... was the horizontal scan rate of the
original 128k Mac.
Total data per frame = 1,349,358 bytes per frame
or
33,733,850 Bytes per second.
Compression rate of 11,734 : 1
His claim of 1000 to 1 is incorrect, since he's quoting a compression of
an already compressed data, He should really be quoting the compression
of the raw data.
2. Adam claimed he could display 25 different images in a second.
According to Adam all packets are discrete this means he has been able
to store an image in < 115.2 bytes. The number permutations in 115^8 =
30,590,228,625,390,625 this may seem like a large number but in real
terms, if every one on the planet walked around with a video camera in
90 minutes we would exceed the number of uniquely identifiable images
using Adams form of compression. i.e.
90 minutes of film = 8,100,000 images
4,000,000,000 people filming 90 minutes = 32,400,000,000,000,000 images
It's simply a math problem, you can't display all possible images on a
768x568 display in 115 bytes.
3. Adam claims you don't need a decompressor since it decompresses
itself. During the demo he claimed the adobe viewer was decompressing
his file on the fly. An AVI is data, it is not a program, it has no
means of performing the basic ALU operations like if, then, else, let
alone the most advanced image compression the world has ever known. In
an environment like the Mac all files are identified as either data or
executables. Data files like AVIs have no CODe or Stack space
allocated. It's a fundamental law of the operating system.
4. Real-time compression, he has the world's most sophisticated image
and sound compression algorithm, and unless he has written a device
driver to interface a DSP, (Digital Signal Processor) card which I doubt
since he has a 60 meg application which is where the compression takes
place. He has to convert 33,733,850 bytes of data every second, which
means on a 1,000 MIP machine each byte of data only gets 29 instructions
per byte.
Think about what he's doing, he's taking 11,734 bytes of data and
storing them in 1 byte. I don't believe it will ever be possible. And
I know it's not happening here.
Regards,
Ben