- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:19:38 +0100
Philip J?genstedt wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: >> We definitely don't want to stretch the video. One of the important use >> cases if having a video playback area and then playing videos with >> different aspect ratios in that playback area. It should all just work. > > I'm having a hard time seeing how this is a use case for video and not > for img. If one wants the intrinsic width/height to be used, then simply > don't set width/height. Otherwise, just setting just one of width/height > or using CSS max-width/max-height should do the trick. > > This is strange: > > <video src="circle.mpg" width="400" height="400"> <!-- circle --> > <video src="circle.mpg" width="400" height="300"> <!-- pillarbox --> This is effectively how YouTube behaves now with their recent change to a widescreen player. It would look terrible if 4:3 videos were stretched to fill the 16:9 viewport, instead of just using black bars on the side. Even before when they were still using a 4:3 player, widescreen videos were rendered as letterbox. > <img src="circle.jpg" width="400" height="400"> <!-- circle --> > <img src="circle.jpg" width="400" height="300"> <!-- oval --> > > I think it would be much more consistent if these elements behaved in > the same way. What is the use case for wanting a video to be stretched? -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 09:19:38 UTC