Replies: 5 comments 2 replies
-
|
See here for details. Moving this to a discussion. https://livepeerjs.org/react/Player#objectfit |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@adamsoffer tagging you for visibility |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Cross-linking a comment about my view on this matter: livepeer/studio#1330 (comment) TLDR (IMO) players should (default to) displaying the entire content of a video, in the best way possible. Cropping a video is not doing that, as it focus more on making the player look good, with no black bars, rather than displaying the source content to the user. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, the studio player is another example of the content not being curated by the developer who is creating the page. So, it totally makes sense to add |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I believe this is gonna be a point of friction for any developer that allows videos with different aspect ratios in their applications. It also behaves in a much more silent way, which devs might not even notice that it is happening until some user reports that their uploaded videos are broken/cropped and only then they find out it is a player config, not broken video. So I think it makes more sense to default to a behavior that can be more easily spotted and doesn't look like a bug (e.g. "Livepeer processed my video wrong"). I don't think we should expect developers to read the entirety of the documentation before getting started. I bet they'll end up copying the first example and iterating on the code suggestions on the IDE. Just to explain where I'm coming from as well, I was really baffled by the experience of uploading a portrait video on the dashboard then seeing it completely cropped on the player. I don't think that is a reasonable default. It just feels broken, which is not the same experience of a black bar IMO. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Related: #197 😄 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Nice! So I guess this one can be closed now?
…On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 20:02 Chase Adams ***@***.***> wrote:
Related: #197 <#197> 😄
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#87 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMJ4R2HHFTOEQ74JP5C7LLWNJGWTANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ53CDZA>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Our default configuration options on the player currently use:
cover(which means "fill" instead of "fit" to area)While this works well for landscape videos. If they are not exactly on 16:9 aspect ratio, they will be cropped on the sides to fill the player area, which can look better than adding black bars to them.
With portrait videos tho, this effectively means that we crop around ~70% of the video, displaying only the very center of it. This means that applications that want to show portrait videos will need to make custom configurations on the player to get minimum functionality working.
IMO the best fix for this would be defaulting the Object Fit to
contain, which means to fit the video on the player area adding black bars to the sides. This will work well on all cases instead, by also adding black bars to landscape videos not exactly 16:9, which is a fine compromise to me. This is not the consensus tho, so let's talk about it to decide.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions