[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Ms. Kitka 
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 will be making videoblogs in
widescreen.  I've been thinking of this for a while, but I've decided
that I need to invest in a background first!  Rocketboom has just
started broadcasting in widescreen with their new HD cam, so as more
and more people do this (I'm sure RB's not the first), aggregators
will just have to adjust.

Resistance is futile... you will comply.
Kitka of Nine 


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quick question to those who have an opinion to offer.
> 
> How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
can play
> videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger scale?
> 
> + mefeedia.com was doing this for a while but not currently.
> + fireant.tv is now doing this
> + vlogdir.com provides it as an option to the viewer but defaults to
> 320x240
> + blip doesnt do this.
> + various other services are mixed.
> 
> Do you care?  Is bigger better? Some videos dont look good scaled
up, others
> look fine.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> - - - -
> Sull
> http://vlogdir.com
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread David Howell 
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 aggregators or video hosting sites where you
can play
> videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger scale?
> 
> + mefeedia.com was doing this for a while but not currently.
> + fireant.tv is now doing this
> + vlogdir.com provides it as an option to the viewer but defaults to
> 320x240
> + blip doesnt do this.
> + various other services are mixed.
> 
> Do you care?  Is bigger better? Some videos dont look good scaled
up, others
> look fine.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> - - - -
> Sull
> http://vlogdir.com
>







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread David Howell 
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 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
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Quick question to those who have an opinion to offer.
> > >
> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> > can play
> > > videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger scale?
> > >
> > > + mefeedia.com was doing this for a while but not currently.
> > > + fireant.tv is now doing this
> > > + vlogdir.com provides it as an option to the viewer but defaults to
> > > 320x240
> > > + blip doesnt do this.
> > > + various other services are mixed.
> > >
> > > Do you care?  Is bigger better? Some videos dont look good scaled
> > up, others
> > > look fine.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > - - - -
> > > Sull
> > > http://vlogdir.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread ecomputerd 
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 size" you are trying to specify, or the pixel 
resolution? My 3.8" VGA Pocket PC shows native 320x240 video at 
approximately half (1.9" diagonal!) the size of a QVGA Pocket PC. I 
always "full screen" the video on my Pocket PC.

I would think that many people have different resolution screens 
where the pixel size is proportional to the actual viewing size, but 
your 320x240 video is smaller on your 1900x1280 screen than my mom's 
1024x768 (or heaven forbid! 15" 800x600 screen).

While I fully believe that "original size" should always be an 
option for the user. The user is in command of the screen (in my 
opinion). If a DVD producer specified that I must watch their movie 
with side- and top-bars at 32" diagonal and that I was not able to 
stretch to my full 92" screen. I'd skip it!

Greg Smith
Author, FeederReader - Pocket PC *direct* RSS text, audio, video, 
podcasts
www.FeederReader.com - Download on the Road


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> These are all good points...
> 
> Here's one reason to scale to a consistent size (while retaining 
aspect ratio):
> - Not every video is the same size
> 
> There is no way to tell if a video is 320x240 or 1000x2500 without
> downloading the file. This information certainly does not exist in 
the
> RSS feed at this time. Now, most videos are 320x240 for now... but 
not
> all.
> 
> If you want to embed the video into a webpage and have it work 
within
> the design of that webpage, then it helps to scale to a consistent
> size. If you simply embed without setting the scale property then
> there's no telling what you might get.
> 
> By providing a link to the original video (not embedded), then the
> viewer can see it at its original "intended" size.
> 
> I would also argue though that most people do not really have an
> "intended" size when making a video. Some people do. Some people 
are
> artists. Other people just export at whatever size iMovie or 
similar
> editing program exports at and they probably wouldn't consider the
> size of their video as part of their "intented" work of art.
> 
> So, taking into account this information, perhaps FireAnt.tv should
> keep all videos at a consistent 320x240 (that is probably the most
> common size)... we tried this, but decided we preferred the larger
> viewing experience. There is also a direct link to the original 
video
> file and blog entry on each video page, so viewers can go and watch
> the video at original sizes if they prefer.
> 
> Perhaps we could reconsider... I happen to like viewing at a larger
> size, but maybe that's just me. Does anyone else like the larger
> viewing size, or am I alone on this one?
> 
> :-)
> 
> -Josh
> 
> 
> On 2/27/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an 
option
> > to view the view at it's original and intended size.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where 
you can
> > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a 
larger
> > > scale?
> >
> > --Steve
> > --
> > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > http://Rocketboom.com
> >
> > My most recent post:
> > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> > 

> >
> > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> >
> > Alternative reply address:
> > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Enric 
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 view the view at it's original and intended size.
> 
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
can 
> > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger 
> > scale?
> 
> --Steve
> -- 
> http://SteveGarfield.com
> http://Rocketboom.com
> 
> My most recent post:
> VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> 
> 
> "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> 
> Alternative reply address:
> stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Enric 
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

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> These are all good points...
> 
> Here's one reason to scale to a consistent size (while retaining
aspect ratio):
> - Not every video is the same size
> 
> There is no way to tell if a video is 320x240 or 1000x2500 without
> downloading the file. This information certainly does not exist in the
> RSS feed at this time. Now, most videos are 320x240 for now... but not
> all.
> 
> If you want to embed the video into a webpage and have it work within
> the design of that webpage, then it helps to scale to a consistent
> size. If you simply embed without setting the scale property then
> there's no telling what you might get.
> 
> By providing a link to the original video (not embedded), then the
> viewer can see it at its original "intended" size.
> 
> I would also argue though that most people do not really have an
> "intended" size when making a video. Some people do. Some people are
> artists. Other people just export at whatever size iMovie or similar
> editing program exports at and they probably wouldn't consider the
> size of their video as part of their "intented" work of art.
> 
> So, taking into account this information, perhaps FireAnt.tv should
> keep all videos at a consistent 320x240 (that is probably the most
> common size)... we tried this, but decided we preferred the larger
> viewing experience. There is also a direct link to the original video
> file and blog entry on each video page, so viewers can go and watch
> the video at original sizes if they prefer.
> 
> Perhaps we could reconsider... I happen to like viewing at a larger
> size, but maybe that's just me. Does anyone else like the larger
> viewing size, or am I alone on this one?
> 
> :-)
> 
> -Josh
> 
> 
> On 2/27/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an
option
> > to view the view at it's original and intended size.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where
you can
> > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger
> > > scale?
> >
> > --Steve
> > --
> > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > http://Rocketboom.com
> >
> > My most recent post:
> > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> >

> >
> > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> >
> > Alternative reply address:
> > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Enric 
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 to have the experience they intended.  Of less
importance, but salient, is being able to watch the video at it's
least pixelated quality -- the dimension it was encoded at.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 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 size and offer the option to go back to it if rescaled.
> >
> >   -- Enric
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an
option
> > > to view the view at it's original and intended size.
> > >
> > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > >
> > > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> > can
> > > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger
> > > > scale?
> > >
> > > --Steve
> > > --
> > > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > > http://Rocketboom.com
> > >
> > > My most recent post:
> > > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> > >

> > >
> > > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> > >
> > > Alternative reply address:
> > > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Enric 
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. Also, that data is not exposed to the browser, it is
> handled by the plugin.
> 
> -Josh
> 
> 
> On 2/27/06, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > These are all good points...
> > >
> > > Here's one reason to scale to a consistent size (while retaining
> > aspect ratio):
> > > - Not every video is the same size
> > >
> > > There is no way to tell if a video is 320x240 or 1000x2500 without
> > > downloading the file. This information certainly does not exist
in the
> > > RSS feed at this time. Now, most videos are 320x240 for now...
but not
> > > all.
> > >
> > > If you want to embed the video into a webpage and have it work
within
> > > the design of that webpage, then it helps to scale to a consistent
> > > size. If you simply embed without setting the scale property then
> > > there's no telling what you might get.
> > >
> > > By providing a link to the original video (not embedded), then the
> > > viewer can see it at its original "intended" size.
> > >
> > > I would also argue though that most people do not really have an
> > > "intended" size when making a video. Some people do. Some people are
> > > artists. Other people just export at whatever size iMovie or similar
> > > editing program exports at and they probably wouldn't consider the
> > > size of their video as part of their "intented" work of art.
> > >
> > > So, taking into account this information, perhaps FireAnt.tv should
> > > keep all videos at a consistent 320x240 (that is probably the most
> > > common size)... we tried this, but decided we preferred the larger
> > > viewing experience. There is also a direct link to the original
video
> > > file and blog entry on each video page, so viewers can go and watch
> > > the video at original sizes if they prefer.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we could reconsider... I happen to like viewing at a larger
> > > size, but maybe that's just me. Does anyone else like the larger
> > > viewing size, or am I alone on this one?
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > -Josh
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/27/06, Steve Garfield  wrote:
> > > > I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an
> > option
> > > > to view the view at it's original and intended size.
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where
> > you can
> > > > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a
larger
> > > > > scale?
> > > >
> > > > --Steve
> > > > --
> > > > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > > > http://Rocketboom.com
> > > >
> > > > My most recent post:
> > > > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> > > >
> >

> > > >
> > > > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> > > >
> > > > Alternative reply address:
> > > > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Nerissa \(TheVideoQueen\) 



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 give them. I hate that. I also hate being given html to share videos/slideshows but that code alters my blog edges because it's too big. I dont like being given encrypted htmlc ode so that I cant change the default size by changing html code.     I suspect, the general public who only watches videos-- no submitting themselves-- that they prefer larger files. But this is only a guess. I havent seen any studies done on video size yet.     NerissaNerissa
 Odenhttp://TheVideoQueen.comhttp://FreeMediaGuide.comhttp://FreeVideoCoding.comhttp://FreeVideoEditing.comhttp://Nebelungs.blogspot.comMy Groups:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videobloggingbusiness/http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/videowomen/*__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 




  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Joshua Kinberg 
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
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Quick question to those who have an opinion to offer.
> >
> > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> can play
> > videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger scale?
> >
> > + mefeedia.com was doing this for a while but not currently.
> > + fireant.tv is now doing this
> > + vlogdir.com provides it as an option to the viewer but defaults to
> > 320x240
> > + blip doesnt do this.
> > + various other services are mixed.
> >
> > Do you care?  Is bigger better? Some videos dont look good scaled
> up, others
> > look fine.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > - - - -
> > Sull
> > http://vlogdir.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Joshua Kinberg 
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 the video (which is one of the nice things
about viewing video on your desktop).

On the web, viewing options are more limited for most video formats as
the browser doesn't really control the video but rather it is
controlled by a media plugin. You can alter the size of the video by
refreshing the webpage or perhaps with aome AJAXy tricks, but we've
found that the exerience of doing this isn't really all that
satisfying as it doesn't work the way it would on your desktop.

Flash is an exception here of course, and this is one reason why the
"upload our video here" sites like to convert to Flash.

-Josh


On 2/27/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Sullivan"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quick question to those who have an opinion to offer.
> > >
> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> > can play
> > > videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger scale?
> > >
> > > + mefeedia.com was doing this for a while but not currently.
> > > + fireant.tv is now doing this
> > > + vlogdir.com provides it as an option to the viewer but defaults to
> > > 320x240
> > > + blip doesnt do this.
> > > + various other services are mixed.
> > >
> > > Do you care?  Is bigger better? Some videos dont look good scaled
> > up, others
> > > look fine.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > - - - -
> > > Sull
> > > http://vlogdir.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Joshua Kinberg 
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 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 view the view at it's original and intended size.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> can
> > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger
> > > scale?
> >
> > --Steve
> > --
> > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > http://Rocketboom.com
> >
> > My most recent post:
> > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> > 
> >
> > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> >
> > Alternative reply address:
> > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Joshua Kinberg 
Not so easy... there's a lot of different formats that all treat this
differently. Also, that data is not exposed to the browser, it is
handled by the plugin.

-Josh


On 2/27/06, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Kinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > These are all good points...
> >
> > Here's one reason to scale to a consistent size (while retaining
> aspect ratio):
> > - Not every video is the same size
> >
> > There is no way to tell if a video is 320x240 or 1000x2500 without
> > downloading the file. This information certainly does not exist in the
> > RSS feed at this time. Now, most videos are 320x240 for now... but not
> > all.
> >
> > If you want to embed the video into a webpage and have it work within
> > the design of that webpage, then it helps to scale to a consistent
> > size. If you simply embed without setting the scale property then
> > there's no telling what you might get.
> >
> > By providing a link to the original video (not embedded), then the
> > viewer can see it at its original "intended" size.
> >
> > I would also argue though that most people do not really have an
> > "intended" size when making a video. Some people do. Some people are
> > artists. Other people just export at whatever size iMovie or similar
> > editing program exports at and they probably wouldn't consider the
> > size of their video as part of their "intented" work of art.
> >
> > So, taking into account this information, perhaps FireAnt.tv should
> > keep all videos at a consistent 320x240 (that is probably the most
> > common size)... we tried this, but decided we preferred the larger
> > viewing experience. There is also a direct link to the original video
> > file and blog entry on each video page, so viewers can go and watch
> > the video at original sizes if they prefer.
> >
> > Perhaps we could reconsider... I happen to like viewing at a larger
> > size, but maybe that's just me. Does anyone else like the larger
> > viewing size, or am I alone on this one?
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> >
> > On 2/27/06, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't like it, especially when they do not provide you with an
> option
> > > to view the view at it's original and intended size.
> > >
> > > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > >
> > > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where
> you can
> > > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger
> > > > scale?
> > >
> > > --Steve
> > > --
> > > http://SteveGarfield.com
> > > http://Rocketboom.com
> > >
> > > My most recent post:
> > > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11
> > >
> 
> > >
> > > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter
> > >
> > > Alternative reply address:
> > > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [videoblogging] Re: When video services scale up your videos dimensions

2006-02-27 Thread Michael Sullivan 



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 any chance to preserve something from the original source, is a good idea I think.  
I think the way I have it on vlogdir, a click to enlarge, a click to return to default (the most likely original scale of 320x240) is not a bad experience.  sullOn 2/27/06, 
Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quesiton:Is this issue about preserving an artist's intentions or is it aboutquality of video when rescaled (i.e. viewing at original size isperceived as "best" quality)-JoshOn 2/27/06, Enric <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> 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 view the view at it's original and intended size.> >> > On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Michael Sullivan wrote:> >> > > How do you feel about aggregators or video hosting sites where you
> can> > > play videos increasing the dimensions from 320x240 to a larger> > > scale?> >> > --Steve> > --> > 
http://SteveGarfield.com> > http://Rocketboom.com> >> > My most recent post:> > VLOG SOUP: Episode 11> > <
http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/2006/02/vlog_soup_episo.html>> >> > "You are worth like 50 million danishes." - Amy Carpenter> >> > Alternative reply address:
> > stephen.garfield [AT] comcast.net> > Yahoo! Groups Links>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/-- - - - - Sullhttp://vlogdir.com
 





  
  
SPONSORED LINKS
  
  
  

Individual
  
  
Fireant
  
  
Use
  
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



   Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.