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 width/
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:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is effectively how YouTube
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 configur
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 expli
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:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is effectively how YouTube behaves now with their recent change to a
> widescreen player. It would look terrible
BTW, using CSS transforms (not a standard yet, but implemented in Webkit and
Gecko now), you can stretch (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 wounds we
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
The use case for stretching moving images () is exactly the
same as for stretching animations () or static
images ().
Consistency is not a use case. For images, we're constrained by
backwards compatibility requirements to stretch them, rather than keep
aspect ratios
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
stretch either if I was defining it today. Allowing stretching of images
enabled a lot of problems, such as images at the wrong r
Well, it looks like you beat me to it, I should have read all the mail
before replying :)
Philip
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:23 -0800, Martin Atkins wrote:
> Pierre-Olivier Latour wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the stretch attribute, we should have this functionally
> > available to users but preferably
Sorry, my 2:nd suggestion at the bottom...
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
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
> >> dif
Pierre-Olivier Latour wrote:
Regarding the stretch attribute, we should have this functionally
available to users but preferably at the CSS level.
It would also be useful if this mechanism were available for images. A
bunch of times I've written code to proportionally scale images to
crea
I think it would be much more consistent if these elements behaved in
the same way.
What is the use case for wanting a video to be stretched?
I can only think of the case when you need to post-fix a video which
wasn't encoded with the proper pixel aspect ratio. And we already
covered
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.
I'm
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 b
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 differe
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 give
Now that the pixelratio override is gone, shouldn't the influence of
pixel aspect ratio on the layout be removed also? I would prefer if the
default were to stretch to fit if both width/height are given, just like
for img. Letterboxing/pillarboxing should be the special case, is the
idea that we sh
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Peter Kasting wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why this attribute would cause problems. Can you
> > elaborate?
>
> * Authors specify the wrong ratio, causing videos to look worse *
> Authors, blindly copy-and-pasting, believe this attribute is required
> and specify it eve
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 s
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? Ye
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, 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 attribut
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,
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 w
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, ov
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
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
>>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 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
> mpl
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Pierre-Olivier Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 as
At 23:32 +0100 17/11/08, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
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 file
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 heade
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
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 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 "displa
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, 15 Oct 2008, Sander van Zoest wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Currently pixelratio is a floating point number, as in:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that not enough?
>
> I hate to say it, but if it was enough, I wouldn't be commenting here.
> It simply isn't accurate
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 pi
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 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
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 and its embedding page are
often served from different
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.
Oh! Then just drop completly. Better, drop html5 and
there will be even less trouble with specifications
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, le
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
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Sander van Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > integer another data type? Also, having non-square pixels is not
> > broken. If we go this route, we might as well get rid of the distinc
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Sander van Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> integer another data type? Also, having non-square pixels is not
> broken. If we go this route, we might as well get rid of the distinction all
> together.
I was responding to Ian's question against your original
pixe
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: 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 t
:[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,
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
al
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Sander van Zoest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only issue I have with splitting it into separate ones, is that we need
> to ensure that both exist or none exist, having just X or just Y is clearly
> confusing and should not be allowed.
I agree on that, but that
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
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Eduard Pascual <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I am very reluctant to make up a whole
> > new microsyntax and corresponding parser algorithm, along with all the
> > tests, etc, to handle
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
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 that it as an attribute named 'pixelratio',
>> however, as you know this
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 matter...
Every respe
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 that it as an attribute named 'pixelratio',
> > however, as you know
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 that it as an attribute named 'pixelratio',
> however, as you know this is never an integer, but rather is the result
> of a fraction (i.e. ratio)
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
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 result of a fraction (i.e. ratio). As
for proper
playback of video frames, it is import
60 matches
Mail list logo
