> Verdi, that's my point, exactly. My Canon HV-20 shoots 1440x1080. > This is why I asked Jake what he has that's going to play it back. > There's no reason that I can think of that blip should support those > frame dimensions.
I'm not asking them to support 1440x1080 at 1.33:1 on the Web, I am asking why they don't convert 1440x1080 1.33:1 properly. Big difference. The Blip encoder (apparently) assumes the video is 4:3 or some approximation of that and outputs a 4:3 file instead of respecting the aspect ratio of the video. You'd have the same problem with a video shot with one of the standard def camcorders that records a 720x480 widescreen mode. With millions of devices shooting files of these dimensions, I'm not asking for a fringe case exception to the rule. > Jake, if all those media players play back your 1440x1080 file in the > correct dimensions (meaning that if you filmed a square, it looks like > a square, and not a rectangle in Windows Media Player, iTunes, etc), > then I don't see what the problem is. The problem is inconsistent experience. And you make my point as to why Blip (or anyone else) should do the conversion correctly. Let's say I opt to leave my file at 1440x1080 because I want to deliver a pixel for pixel consistent experience with what I shot. If I make my RSS delivered file 1440x1080 1.33:1 the people who download the video will get the experience I intended because there media player will handle the file correctly because Blip merely hosts the file. The people who watch it on the Web will get a squished 4:3 experience. > I'm not knocking your desire to have a file hosted in those > dimensions. :) I'm trying to understand what the benefit is to you of > having a file like that hosted. There are many potential benefits, one being more bits per pixel than stretching the 1440x1080 image to 1920x1080. There's a reason HDV records to 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 - at the required compression rate to fit on a MiniDV tape it looks better and you get efficiencies of encoding. HDV is not the only video medium that does this - many television shows are delivered this way (although you'd likely never know it), which doesn't make it right but is also an indication that I'm not simply being obtuse. > For example, if someone posted that they were trying to get blip to > host 60x200 videos, I would assume they were trying to make videos > that fit as banner ads. Which would be an entirely different scenario. I'm not asking for support of dimensions not native to camcorders. If a camcorder shot at 60x200, then yes, they should support it. I have options of outputting a finished file from at least a half dozen programs that all result in a 1440x1080 1.33:1 file. Jake Ludington http://www.jakeludington.com
