For Better or Worse, YouTube Now Adapts to Multiple Aspect Ratios (gizmodo.com) 74
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein writes:
YouTube very quietly made a very cool and rather major improvement in their video players today... YouTube is now adjusting the YT player size to match videos' native aspect ratios. This is a big deal, and very much welcome.
YouTube provided some before-and-after screenshots Friday, and acknowledged that "We launched this update on mobile awhile back (both Android and iOS) so this change also aligns the desktop and mobile viewing experiences."
Gizmodo writes: Until now YouTube forced all videos into a 16:9 ratio by windowboxing them, meaning surround them with black vertical or horizontal bars like the old days of watching widescreen movies on VHS. In that sense, this isn't a huge change -- white space instead of black -- although the location of player controls moves to fit the video's size...
The aspect adjustments are apparently automatic, retroactive to all uploaded video, and if there's a way to turn the feature off in Creator Studio it's non-obvious... Update 7/27/18 7:48pm: A YouTube spokesperson has since clarified to Gizmodo that currently there is no way to disable this feature.
YouTube provided some before-and-after screenshots Friday, and acknowledged that "We launched this update on mobile awhile back (both Android and iOS) so this change also aligns the desktop and mobile viewing experiences."
Gizmodo writes: Until now YouTube forced all videos into a 16:9 ratio by windowboxing them, meaning surround them with black vertical or horizontal bars like the old days of watching widescreen movies on VHS. In that sense, this isn't a huge change -- white space instead of black -- although the location of player controls moves to fit the video's size...
The aspect adjustments are apparently automatic, retroactive to all uploaded video, and if there's a way to turn the feature off in Creator Studio it's non-obvious... Update 7/27/18 7:48pm: A YouTube spokesperson has since clarified to Gizmodo that currently there is no way to disable this feature.
Why for better or worse? (Score:2)
I'm curious about the headline. Why would adjusting to different aspect ratios be a bad thing? Is there a downside to having videos adjust to aspect ratio?
Re: Why for better or worse? (Score:1)
You are wrong. The aspect ratio of the video stays the same as it originally was. It's the player that is adjusted. Nothing is cut off except the black bars. 100% of the video stays visible.
Re:Why for better or worse? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, that's not at all what's happening. It's adapting the window shape to the content, so a 4:3 video gets a 4:3 player box, and a 16:9 video gets a 16:9 player box.
I would assume you still get black bars if you fullscreen it and the video aspect ratio doesn't match your monitor's aspect ratio. But it's absolutely the correct behavior if it's playing in a window to adjust that window to the source aspect ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube isn't doing that. If you upload a 4:3 video, it will be shown uncropped and without pillarbox in a 4:3 player. If you upload a 16:9 video, it will be shown in a 16:9 player.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea, but I would hope so.
Sign of the end times (Score:5, Funny)
Because we're doomed once society accepts portrait videos as OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're doomed once society accepts portrait videos as OK.
Can't wait till we're doomed, then. You really need to rotate one of your monitors -- portrait is drastically better for working with code, sysadmin/etc work in a terminal, web page reading, etc. I keep one monitor in landscape only because some crap assumes that bad orientation.
Another problem is that 16x9 monitors are unfit for rotation, and to get one with a sane aspect ratio you pretty much need to buy used.
Re: (Score:3)
Because we're doomed once society accepts portrait videos as OK.
Can't wait till we're doomed, then. You really need to rotate one of your monitors -- portrait is drastically better for working with code, sysadmin/etc work in a terminal, web page reading, etc. I keep one monitor in landscape only because some crap assumes that bad orientation.
Why does one need to rotate one monitor to portrait mode, especially with multiple monitors? I have duel 23" monitors, and I have no problem editing code in a window of appropriate size on one monitor, a terminal or two on the "empty" space on that monitor (unless I'm using an IDE, in which case portrait mode would really suck) and documentation, web browser, or whatever I need on the other monitor. If you need to full screen your code editor, you're doing something wrong, because on a decent sized monitor
Re: (Score:2)
Tiny terminals work as long as you're a kid and don't value your eyesight. After three or so decades of staring at tiny letters, you'll want full-screen.
Yeah, a big monitor of big resolution can emulate two portrait ones, but that's 35" not 23". And those that are not repurposed TVs with shitty blurry pixels are extremely expensive compared to regular rotated monitors.
As for 16x9, they're too narrow. I'd say 16x12 is optimal for both portrait and landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
As for 16x9, they're too narrow. I'd say 16x12 is optimal for both portrait and landscape.
I prefer 4:3 to 16:12 ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer 4:3 to 16:12 ;)
But then, Gemini is marketed praising a novel idea of 18:9 instead of lousy 16:8 or even 2:1...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's of course a lot of subjective going on here, but...
To me wide screen is more comfortable. It's how my vision naturally works. Field of view is wider than it is tall. The one case I'll pivot my screen for is a word doc or PDF, because it won't wrap lines for wider formats (well in Word I *could* change the page layout, but it's a crapshoot with many documents because they are particular about the layout). Occasionally a web page will go nuts with the CSS to get that 'print' feel and waste a lot o
Re:Sign of the end times (Score:2)
Maybe it is subjective but I'm not a voyeur. Watching a vertical video of a baby or kitten doing hilarious things feels a bit like viewing through a key hole.
Reading across the narrow end of a scroll is easier than unrolling the entire scroll to read a line, so some writing systems developed around that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the comments on the thread with the pictures, one of the top ones says, "the new 16:9 window is too large. I like the smaller window better." Same shape...just a little bigger, but they don't like it.
And that's called 'hating change.'
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you resize the window any more?
Re: (Score:2)
This seems like a logical step, although personally I think the tall skinny format brought about entirely due to phones is horrendous in general.
What's funny is that was my initial thought regarding this change, what bizarre things will those videos do with the new player.
So I pulled one up I accidentally had saved in a playlist awhile back (don't ask) and to my surprise it still has the black bars on the side and looks as awful as it ever did, and the playback controls are still spilling over those black bars.
(and my lord, I just notice that video was uploaded as 144p too... what kind of monster does this)
Perhaps the new player isn't fully pushed o
Game Boy is 144p (Score:2)
(and my lord, I just notice that video was uploaded as 144p too... what kind of monster does this)
Game Boy game developer perhaps? The native resolution of both the Game Boy and the Game Gear is 160x144 pixels.
Slow LCD compensation (Score:2)
Don't classic game systems' frame rates fall between 50 and 62 Hz though?
Game Boy games are often intentionally limited to 15, 20, or 30 frames per second in order to compensate for the slow pixel response time of the STN passive matrix LCD of the monochrome Game Boy and Game Boy Pocket systems. Even for games without intentional low FPS, how does upscaling a 160x144 video by a factor of 5 in each direction (to 800x720) in order to make it "720p minimum" not make it take 25 times the CPU power and (often pay-per-bit) bandwidth to view? In fact, I was under the impression that 72
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious about the headline. Why would adjusting to different aspect ratios be a bad thing? Is there a downside to having videos adjust to aspect ratio?
This will be a worse experience for me because, according to Gizmodo, "the location of player controls moves to fit the video's size..." I generally keep one browser window open in the corner of the screen for playing various videos and currently, all controls and UI features remain consistently in the same place no matter which video I'm watching. If things start moving around depending on the video, it's only going to slow down navigation and aggravate users like me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I miss media keys working. Web ecosystem seems to not care about doing anything to enable those once useful, but mostly neglected keys...
Re: (Score:2)
[On Youtube] spacebar still works for pausing and playing, arrow up and down keys for volume and left and right arrow keys for 10ish second seeking. Am I missing something here?
Re: (Score:2)
Vertical video rubbish. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it could all be solved in software. Film vertically ? Your video should either be pan & scanned (more or less intelligently), or just explicitly take an horizontal frame.
Re: (Score:2)
There are probably a tiny number of shots that work better in vertical format
But, yeah, most vertical videos are just quick and sloppy with no regard for proper framing or composition
Re: (Score:2)
Say you're trying to record video demonstrating operation of a treadmill, and you discover that even at your phone's camera's minimum zoom level, a horizontal frame cannot fit both the head and feet. What's your next step? Buy another camera?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your next step? Buy another camera?
If you hit an obstacle like a wall, either the room or the camera isn't appropriate for what you're trying to accomplish.
In my experience, vertical video is far less expensive than buying a camera with a wider angle lens or buying a larger room.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll just go and mount my TV vertically then.
Watch it on 20% of a phone or tablet. Waste 80% (Score:2)
> You can watch a vertical video on a phone, a tablet, or a vertical monitor
More specifically, you can watch it on the bottom 20% of your phone, while the top 80% of the screen is wasted. That's for most videos filmed vertically. Far into the sky normally isn't interesting, nor do I need to see somebody's feet while you're interviewing them.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, a rocket launch, football (either kind) elevated from the end zone, and such make more sense to shoot vertically.
With Youtube no longer forcing the aspect ratio, that will work better.
Re: (Score:2)
At least one of their apps had an animated icon subtly indicating you should turn the phone 90 before recording. I can't remember which one.
Re: (Score:2)
One of Google's. I can't answer the reason why it was subtle, but I can answer in what way it was subtle. It was translucent and showed a half turn with curved arrows when it detected you were in portrait. Well now I have to see if I can find it.
Here's a screen grab:
http://littlebigdetails.com/po... [littlebigdetails.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because we do not only consume content from a phone.
When we are not worried about the awkwardness of trying to hold a phone wide with one hand, wide format is more like the way our normal vision works.
Generally speaking we do not tilt our head sideways to make our natural view 'portrait'.
Vertical Video Syndrome (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Hilarious. Thanks. :)
How can I browse comments without losing video? (Score:3)
For me and as far as the desktop version of YouTube is concerned, I would rather be able to scroll through comments or even related video without losing visual of a playing video.
Is this possible at all, or through an extension or hack?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do it in mobile...
But in the browser, if there's an extension, I don't know, but you can hit ctrl-shift-c, click the video, then go up to the element for div id 'player':
div id="player"...
And then after selecting that, add to the 'element.style' section on the right:
position: fixed
width: 100%
z-index: 1000
And the player will no longer scroll with the page.
I imagine an extension to detect the page and modify the css would be easy to make...
Desktop? Get a Second Display (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly as requested. Thanks a lot.
Question is: Does google see this as a disadvantage in some way? They should have implemented it long ago in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative for if you are comfortable with CSS (install a browser extension like Stylish):
/**********/
ytd-watch[theater] #top #player.ytd-watch {
position: relative;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
margin-top: 0;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #playlist.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 0;
}
ytd-watch[theater] #top #related.style-scope.ytd-watch {
top: 0;
}
@media (min-width: 1200
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get the old fast YouTube design back without any lame hacks?
On desktop app only? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway I don't get why people would watch video in anything other than fullscreen.
Because they are doing more than one thing at a time?
Yay, more dynamic HTML (Score:2)
My biggest problem with this move is their insistence on using dynamic HTML loading. The video window loads and starts playing immediately, which is nice, but the sidebar and page styling gets loaded dynamically, so the recommended thumbnails tend to overlap and obscure the video until the whole page loads. It would be nice if the player could better cache the dimensions of the video to make sure the page layout doesn't have to be scaled multiple times and cause everything to go haywire and jump all over
Took me by suprise (Score:2)