W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [Bug 26526] Fix aspect ratio constraint

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 07:48:08 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nnDH5gBWDS=z4KC_rhiaYxTryB26DLKjRZaCz3Sx0NMQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "bugzilla@jessica.w3.org" <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
What's the difference between providing a float to give the aspect ratio
and a float to provide an epsilon for accuracy to providing two integers to
provide exact aspect ratio? It's two numbers either way. Actually, two
integers need less storage, are easier to understand and read by users (you
could have fooled me with expecting to know that 1.7 is supposed to be
16/9), and more accurate. I really don't see where you see the advantage?

Best Regards,
Silvia.
On 11 Aug 2014 03:05, "Jan-Ivar Bruaroey" <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  On 8/9/14 6:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> With AspectRatio, the problem
>  is that the user wants to specify a ratio that can't be accurately
> represented
> with a double and we've just defined a language that's too impoverished
> to represent that.
>
>
> Realistically, are there going to be competing standard aspect ratios
> within epsilon?
>
> For hardware that can do flexible ratios, is double-precision insufficient
> to deduce the other pixel dimension?
>
> If not, then I think this is largely a problem that implementations should
> solve without affecting users. Users specifying 1.78, 1.77777777778 or 16/9
> presumably all mean exactly the same thing, the standard 16:9 widescreen
> aspect. Thus an epsilon seems reasonable to me for aspectRatio, and
> introducing fractions seems overkill from a user's perspective.
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2014 21:48:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:29 UTC