I think the videos should be shown at whatever size they were made...
things are going to change in the near future and these sites will
have problems if they choose to control the size of video.
Rumours are circulating that the NEW video iPod will be 16:9, so I
have no doubt that more people
I vote for no scaling.
If I wanted a larger video, I would have made a larger video to begin
with.
David
http://www.taoofdavid.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quick question to those who have an opinion to offer.
How do you feel about
Just a note, scaling does not mean that the aspect ratio changes.
Widescreen is still widescreen.
-Josh
On 2/27/06, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vote for no scaling.
If I wanted a larger video, I would have made a larger video to begin
with.
David
http://www.taoofdavid.com
Also, another note... there seems to be some confusion here when
talking about aggregators... Michael's original message was referring
to FireAnt.tv, which is our website. He was not referring to FireAnt
the desktop-based aggregator, which gives the user much more control
over the viewing size of
Again...if I made a 320x240...dont scale it up 2x or 4x or 6x the size
of what I had originally created.
David
http://www.taoofdavid.com
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just a note, scaling does not mean that the aspect ratio changes.
Widescreen
Josh,
I'm in the same boat as you. I often tap the full screen button
when viewing video on line. In my aggregator on the Pocket PC, the
default size can be chosen by the user and I chose full screen.
If you are a content creator and you intend a certain size video, is
it the final viewing
I agree. At the very least an aggregator should default to the
original size and offer the option to go back to it if rescaled.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an option
to
I would think the movie information including the size is in the
header of the file. That should make the information available in the
first bytes loaded before the audio and video data. If so, then one
should be able to determine the size before the video and audio
streams through.
-- Enric
Quesiton:
Is this issue about preserving an artist's intentions or is it about
quality of video when rescaled (i.e. viewing at original size is
perceived as best quality)
-Josh
On 2/27/06, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. At the very least an aggregator should default to the
original
For me it's mainly preserving the artists intention. Most people who
make video probably don't consciously choose a video size for what
they're communicating. But for those that might -- like if DaveMedia,
EchoPlex Park or Bottom Union who may make a size as part of the video
structure -- I want
Yes, it's probably not easy. :) Matter of priority and value to
users I would think. For many users it may not matter.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not so easy... there's a lot of different formats that all treat this
differently.
Primary for me, is the authors intent... despite that prob not being an overwhelming concern, I pref to adhere to it. Secondary is the quality... since most videos scale up with minimum distortion. I also figure that as aggregator services, their is enough tearing a part of content/context and
I prefer controlling my videos. I abide by upload requirements and compensate for ones who compress by uploading higher res files. What bugs me is when my uploads are limited by th ehost but the host delivers larger videos-- basically these hosts make my videos look pixelated not matter what I
13 matches
Mail list logo
