Re: Proposal for Hints Information

This almost makes my point for why selectable configs are best.  Authors will always want to control priority.  In fact, I suspect authors will want not just single priority flags but rather an ability to give a priority list, e.g., height_bound is more important than best_aspect, which is more important than fit_height, but width_bound, best_fit, and fit_width are unacceptable.

-- dan

On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Aleksandr Avseyev wrote:

>   I would add priority flags: HEIGHT_BOUND, WIDTH_BOUND or BEST_FIT, BEST_ASPECT, FIT_WIDTH, FIT_HEIGHT. Default priority is pixel count and we don't care if either height or width go out of bound.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 15:11 , Aleksandr Avseyev wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For Video: ----------------------------
> >
> > min / max height
> >
> > min / max width
> >
> >  Is there any reason not to put height and weight into pairs? From my opinion it makes more sense to specify minRes(w, h) and maxRes(w, h). Aspect ratio is a good idea, but it should be specified on how it works with resolution.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Regards, Aleksandr Avseyev (Futurewei Research Lab)
> >
> 
> that seems like a reasonable idea but we'd need to figure one more thing out and what is what min and max mine in the case of 2 d vector. For example, is 176 by 144 bigger or smaller than 160 by 160. What I would propose is that we order them based on the number of pixels. So 176 * 144 = 25344 which is smaller than 160 * 160 = 25600. If the number of pixels is the same then we pick the one that is wider is considered bigger.
> 
> Does that sound like it would work ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ------------------------------
> Regards, Aleksandr Avseyev (Futurewei Research Lab)
> www.pictures2.com