- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:30:28 +0200
- To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:07:00 +0200, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:43:31 +0200, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Jack Jansen wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not thrilled by extending the xywh syntax beyond what we have >>>> (pixels and integer percentages), nor by dropping percentages >>>> altogether. >>> >>> Same, integer percentages are not meant to do aspect adaptation, there >>> was an 'aspect' keyword in earlier versions, and it was dropped, but >>> maybe in version 2... >>> Integer percentages are to address simple use cases, like "50%", not >>> for complex things like aspect ration adaptation that may require some >>> specific things (16:9 -> 4:3 is not always a fixed crop) >> >> What are the use cases for always cropping (say) 50% of the video with >> a precision that gets worse the bigger the video gets and where using >> the pixel syntax is not an option? > > > Why would the precision get worse? The precision for a 480p video is 4.8 pixels vertically, while the precision for a 1080p video would be 10.8 pixels vertically. The absolute precision gets worse, the relative precision is of course always 1%. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 09:31:07 UTC