Forums / Maintenance / Report Problems

14,132 total conversations in 1,027 threads

+ New Thread


About HD videos in entries / KYM guidelines

Last posted Oct 16, 2011 at 10:42AM EDT. Added Oct 09, 2011 at 11:15PM EDT
9 posts from 6 users

Ideally, anyone who creates or helps with entries should be familiar with the KYMdb Style Guide.

It has brought to my attention that the guide mentions:

Videos: Center-align all video embeds and keep the width uniform at 425px; avoid embedding more than 8 videos in the body text and upload the rest in the video gallery at the bottom of the entry."

No problem here. Size is 425 pixels wide and 318 pixels high. The videos look like this:


So, what happens with HD videos? If we stick to the entries, with 425 px width, it looks like this:

HD videos’ height adjusts to 246 px, while the normal 360p videos’ height adjusts to 318 px, meaning that the HD videos are actually smaller than if the normal-sized version was posted in the entry.

In this case, I propose updating the KYM style guide so HD videos also have the 318 px height, thus being 566×318 px instead of 425×246 px, so they look like this:

Anyone would have problems seeing videos this size? Opinions? Would entries look too cluttered?

Last edited Oct 09, 2011 at 11:19PM EDT
Oct 09, 2011 at 11:15PM EDT
Quote

Alright, let’s get some math up this bitch.

We’ll use the size of the vids.

  • Standard: 425 * 318 = 135150
  • HD Width Based: 425 * 246 = 104550
  • HD Height Based: 566 * 318 = 179988

So basically both HD vids are not really a solution. So we’ll go for a similar surface than the regular vids.

135150 / 104550 = 1.2927… But that’s with the suface.
For the sides you have to use the square root: √(135150/104550) = 1.13696…..

So of the width based hd vids we’ll have to multiply the sides by that.
This gives Width = 483 and Height = 280 (not exactly of course).

Youtube makes the height 275 in this case.

Which makes a nice size IMO.


Possible solution?

Oct 10, 2011 at 05:51AM EDT
Quote

My proposal was to actually have the surface area for HD videos larger, because they are HD videos after all. Your proposal of keeping the surface area the same also sounds good to me. I was bothered that right now the videos have a smaller surface area.

Let’s add some basic algebra to further explain your proposal:

First, I’ll treat “pixel” as a length distance, although technically speaking a pixel is actually a square. Its surface or area equivalent will be named a “square pixel” and will measure 1 × 1 length pixels.

KYM guidelines: 425 × 318 pixels = 135,150 square pixels

To keep the same area, considering HD videos have a width:height ratio of 16:9, then

w=(16/9) x h

Area equation:

w x h = 135,150 square pixels

Solving for both w and h, discarding negative solutions, yields:

w = 490.17 pixels
h = 275.721 pixels

Rounding,

w = 490 pixels
h = 276 pixels

which yields 135,240 square pixels, which is 90 square pixels more than the KYM guidelines, but that is 0.0665% more than the KYM guidelines, which is quite negligible and could be said they are practically the same.

Now the question is, should we keep same surface area or make it larger for HD videos?

Last edited Oct 10, 2011 at 11:33PM EDT
Oct 10, 2011 at 11:09PM EDT
Quote

Efrain wrote:

Is HD really so necessary in the entries?

Understand Thou Memetic Materials On The Internet is a highly regarded and sophisticated site that must use flamboyant designs and definition qualified videos to emphasize the importance of the entity that the site is trying to explain, while converting unnecessary prolong writings into less compelling and complicated entries.

Oct 12, 2011 at 11:57PM EDT
Quote

Efrain wrote:

Is HD really so necessary in the entries?

It’s not that we chose either to put them as HD in the entries or not.

The issue is that many videos in YouTube are uploaded by the authors as 16:9 (those that have the option for 720p or 1080p), while in the distant past all videos had the 4:3 ratio.

If you try to embed an HD video, the iframe object will size it as 16:9 using the “black bars” in the sides.

Oct 13, 2011 at 01:39AM EDT
Quote

We chose 425 because we wanted to have a uniform max width. It’s not really about overall size.

Last edited Oct 13, 2011 at 10:16PM EDT
Oct 13, 2011 at 10:15PM EDT
Quote

Mister J wrote:

Understand Thou Memetic Materials On The Internet is a highly regarded and sophisticated site that must use flamboyant designs and definition qualified videos to emphasize the importance of the entity that the site is trying to explain, while converting unnecessary prolong writings into less compelling and complicated entries.

Oh, I see…

Oct 15, 2011 at 08:24PM EDT
Quote

425px is previous width of YouTube player (SD).

Recently, I choose these settings for YT videos
SD : 420*315 (now default size)
WIDE : 420*268 (to fit with SD)

I know that 420px or 425px is too small width to watch widescreen videos. But, 560px, the default size for YT HD player is too wide to existing KYM’s layout.

On the other hand, default size of widescreen videos in other video sharing services are :

  • Dailymotion -> Small 320*180, Medium 480*270, Large 560*315
  • Metacafe -> Small 440*248, Medium 540*304, Large 600*338

As these results, I think the width for widescreen videos acceptable to the layout is less than or equal to 480px.

I checked widescreen player in 480*270px can hide player control as well as SD player.

Oct 16, 2011 at 10:42AM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Hi! You must login or signup first!