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 > > <http://stevegarfield.blogs.com/videoblog/2006/02/vlog_soup_episo.htm l> > > > > "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/
