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" <jkinberg@> > > 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 <steve@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
