On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Chris Double
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Peter Kasting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it is the end of the world if this attribute goes in, but I
see very little benefit to it, and I am always for removing items with
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Another thing, if I as a website developer find a video that was encoded
with the wrong pixel ratio, wouldn't the simplest, and most intuitive,
way to fix it be to simply set a width and height on video until it
looked approximately correct? Yes,
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Another thing, if I as a website developer find a video that was encoded
with the wrong pixel ratio, wouldn't the simplest, and most intuitive,
way to fix it be to simply set a width
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Philip J�genstedt wrote:
Now that the pixelratio override is gone, shouldn't the influence of
pixel aspect ratio on the layout be removed also?
It is, isn't it? What did I leave in?
I would prefer if the default were to stretch to fit if both
width/height are given,
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
We definitely don't want to stretch the video. One of the important use
cases if having a video playback area and then playing videos with
different aspect ratios in that playback area. It should all just work.
why should this be different
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Philip Jgenstedt wrote:
Now that the pixelratio override is gone, shouldn't the influence of
pixel aspect ratio on the layout be removed also?
It is, isn't it? What did I leave in?
Video content should be
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
We definitely don't want to stretch the video. One of the important use
cases if having a video playback area and then playing videos with
different aspect ratios in that playback area. It should all just work.
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 18:19 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
We definitely don't want to stretch the video. One of the important use
cases if having a video playback area and then playing videos with
different
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why should this be different for images and video?
Why should it be the same, other than consistency? I wouldn't make img
stretch either if I was defining it today. Allowing stretching of images
enabled a lot of problems, such as images at the wrong
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
The use case for stretching moving images (video) is exactly the
same as for stretching animations (img src=animation.gif) or static
images (img src=static.jpg).
Consistency is not a use case. For images, we're constrained by
backwards compatibility requirements to
BTW, using CSS transforms (not a standard yet, but implemented in Webkit and
Gecko now), you can stretch video (or anything else) any way you want.
Rob
--
He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
video src=circle.mpg width=400 height=400 !-- circle --
video src=circle.mpg width=400 height=300 !-- pillarbox --
This is effectively how
Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2008, 11:02 +1100 schrieb Silvia Pfeiffer:
I would support an explicit keepaspectratio attribute, which turns the
width/height from a video width/height to a viewport.
In fact, such an attribute would be awesome for images, too.
It could be a CSS attribute or an explicit
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 23:07 +0100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Given the number of people who watch 4:3 video stretched to a 16:9
display without even noticing/caring that the aspect ratio is wrong,
While I'm aware that there are such people, largely because they don't
know how to configure
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
video src=circle.mpg width=400 height=400 !-- circle --
video
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Not all video players behave like the YouTube one though. Many stretch
with the width/height attributes.
Yeah, it's really annoying. :-)
I would support an explicit keepaspectratio attribute, which turns the
width/height from a video
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Pierre-Olivier Latour wrote:
And the suggested hack is not even really usable: if you have a
video coming from a NTSC DV source as 720x480 improperly transcoded
to say MP4 720x480 square pixels, using the theoretical 10:11 pixel
aspect ratio will _not_ make
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might be missing something here, but:
1) I don't remember any major media system I've dealt with so far having
an explicit pixel aspect ratio override API,
2) on the web, neither QT plug-in nor Flash have it,
That
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Peter Kasting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it is the end of the world if this attribute goes in, but I
see very little benefit to it, and I am always for removing items with
marginal utility.
I'm inclined to agree. I think it's odd that an attribute is
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 22:28 -0800, Sander van Zoest wrote:
Depending on how you want to accomplish you can do that with an enum
that defines how to handle the case:
1) do nothing.
2) disproportionately adjust
3) stretch follow by letter-,pillar-,windowbox appropriately.
4) complete fill
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
By the way, the pixel-aspect-ratio on video caps in the GStreamer
framework has precisely the same meaning as this attribute, overriding
it
And the suggested hack is not even really usable: if you have a
video coming
from a NTSC DV source as 720x480 improperly transcoded to say MP4
720x480
square pixels, using the theoretical 10:11 pixel aspect ratio will
_not_ make
it look right: it needs to be clipped to 704x480 first.
Are
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Pierre-Olivier Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
1) I don't remember any major media system I've dealt with so far having an
explicit pixel aspect ratio override API,
2) on the web, neither QT plug-in nor Flash have it,
3) in the case of this spec, the way it's
I should point out that the pixelratio attribute isn't only for authors,
it's also useful when the media framework used doesn't recognize the
(pixel) aspect ratio even when it's correctly set. From reading the
mplayer man page I see that AVI files can have aspect ratio set in the
OpenDML vprp
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
By the way, the pixel-aspect-ratio on video caps in the GStreamer
framework has precisely the same meaning as this attribute, overriding
it on a video sink also has an effect similar to what is suggested in
the HTML5
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Pierre-Olivier Latour wrote:
And the suggested hack is not even really usable: if you have a video coming
from a NTSC DV source as 720x480 improperly transcoded to say MP4 720x480
square pixels, using the theoretical 10:11 pixel aspect ratio will _not_ make
it look
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Pierre-Olivier Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
In any case, if this attribute really needs to be present, we should rename
it at the minimum (picking a term from the professional video world
requires taking the constraints that come with it), maybe displayRatio
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Sander van Zoest wrote:
source pixelratio=10:11 !-- 525 composite NTSC --
source pixelratio=59:54 !-- 625 composite PAL --
source pixelratio=1018:1062 !-- 1920x1035 HDTV SMPTE RP 187-1995 --
Currently pixelratio is a floating point number, as in:
source
I agree that incorrectly encoded videos are annoying, but I don't
think
we should have this attribute at all because I don't think it
passes the
will it be commonly used smell test.
I am also afraid that it will difficult to use correctly, since you
frequently have to use clean aperture in
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:01:22 +0200, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I hate to say it, but if it was enough, I wouldn't be commenting here. It
simply isn't accurate
enough to store it as a float.
How is
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eduard Pascual
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:22 PM
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Sander van Zoest
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This isn't expected to be used often
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that not enough?
It is enough. Sander and Eduard have provided excellent arguments why
the pixel aspect ratio, and especially the frame rate, should be
represented as rationals in video formats. But as an override for
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sander van Zoest
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:35 PM
To: Eduard Pascual
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; Ian Hickson
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Eduard Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15
: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:41 AM
To: Sander van Zoest
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Sander van Zoest wrote:
I just recently started looking at HTML5 and noticed the video tag. Neat
addition. I also noticed
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ralph Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that not enough?
It is enough. Sander and Eduard have provided excellent arguments why
the pixel aspect ratio, and especially the frame rate,
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I do not see why we are condoning hacks on top of hacks, when it is so
simple
to just specify hSpace and vSpace.
The entire problem is that it is not simple. It is less simple to spec,
less simple to declare, less
The entire problem is that it is not simple. It is less simple to spec,
less simple to declare, less simple to parse, and less simple to test,
and there is zero real-world gain in it.
sarcasmOh! Then just drop video completly. Better, drop html5 and
there will be even less trouble with
On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Following that logic, why add the attribute at all?
Well, I like the pixelaspect attribute because incorrect aspect ratios
drive me up the wall. Because the video
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:01:22 +0200, Sander van Zoest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to say it, but if it was enough, I wouldn't be commenting here. It
simply isn't accurate
enough to store it as a float.
How is not accurate? In terms of precision it shouldn't really
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Following that logic, why add the attribute at all?
Well, I like the pixelaspect attribute
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Sander van Zoest [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi,
I just recently started looking at HTML5 and noticed the video tag. Neat
addition.
I also noticed that it as an attribute named 'pixelratio', however, as you
know this
is never an integer, but rather is the
41 matches
Mail list logo
