Fantastic video, but it winds me up when they add padding to a phone video to make it landscape, as if no one in existence might possibly be viewing their phone-generated content on a phone.
Yeah adding padding is always harmful. If the aspect ratio doesn’t match it’s not like the video breaks so just let the player deal with it. Anyone who has a problem with vertical videos isn’t going to be any happier that you added bars to it. Who is this solution for?
It’s because the content was likely preprocessed for broadcast news. Which means normal 16:9 landscape format.
Vertical video has done nothing but introduce constant issues. I used to be a guide for Jeep runs, and I was also the video editor for the run videos (just clips from the run with music). And naturally you can’t be everywhere, so 95% of the clips have to be recorded by everyone else. Even though they were told “don’t record vertical video because we can’t use it” they did so anyways, and were upset when we couldn’t use their videos.
And to be clear, this isn’t just a random video. We’re talking about a large organized and legally registered club, so we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.
Why can’t you use it? Because your web designer isn’t designing for the possibility that people use a phone to access the Web, but it’s not 2004 any more and they’re living in the past.
You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality. It’s only of lower quality if you’ve padded it out and are watching it on a landscape screen!
Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.
I suspect that the majority of people who spend even a tiny bit more than half of their recreational screen time looking at a fixed landscape screen are well over thirty.
Because TVs are landscape. These videos are shown at club events.
You showed your colours when you assumed that portrait video is of lower quality.
I never said it’s lower quality. Not once.
Technology to detect whether your webpage is being viewed landscape has existed for a long time, and takes very simple calculations indeed or just a splash or two of css to maximise the video size for whatever screen it’s being viewed on. It’s design laziness and wasted bandwidth to put the silly blurry bars or even black bars down the side of the video. But don’t force landscape on everyone. Smart phones aren’t new and they aren’t going away.
we kept everything to a certain standard of quality. Vertical videos are not suitable for anything except a phone.
Totally not lower quality. Definitely not. There’s a full stop and everything. No link whatsoever. My bad.
No one said anything about websites.
Well I think the rest of us are discussing a video on bbc.co.uk, which is a website, and we’re doing it on lemmy.world, which is also a website, and when I complained about people making portrait videos landscape, I suspect most people correctly figured out that I meant on websites, so I really think it’s just you that assumes we’re talking about jeep club.
Watching portrait footage that’s been padded out to landscape on a portrait device is even worse!
I’m proposing that the web designer writes a responsive webpage when they are sent a portrait video to include, so that if it’s viewed on a portrait device it fills the width, and when it’s viewed on a landscape device it fills the height. If it’s actually for telly, there’s usually no harm in cropping a bit at the top and bottom and at that point, feel free to put whatever you like down the sides, but there’s no need to throw away the portrait original for the portrait view of the website.
Like I already said, the technology for writing a webpage that looks different depending on the orientation of the device being used to view it is neither complicated nor new. There’s no need to treat every medium the same in 2023.
Yes, and that’s great, it really is, but when the footage you have is portrait, don’t pad it out to force landscape orientation on it irrespective of the orientation of the viewer’s screen, just let portrait content be full size portrait when viewed on a portrait screen. That is the beginning, the middle and the end of my point. It’s all I’m asking for.
And when anyone films in portrait, make sure to punish anyone trying to watch the footage with a similarly criminal portrait orientation, by putting borders round the side of the portrait content to force it to be landscape, thus shrinking the content to roughly a ninth of their screen, unless they switch to the blessed landscape orientation when it will fill a glorious third of the screen. Let no one watch it full size for the creator thereof has sinned against the gods of landscape.
This is the right and proper punishment for content creators who break the landscape law: let no one see this video fullscreen, for they have sinned against landscape. ibb.co/x2MQQG2 let the borders of landscape wrath descend and pad, and let fullscreen be disabled for all, for if landscape viewers are denied fullscreen EVERYONE MUST SUFFER.
Oh, or you could just skip the fuzzy bars in portrait mode if you’re feeling more accommodating to phone users.
Alright, you win, I’ll never use my phone in portrait ever again, especially not to film my dog in a storm. I’ll make sure I turn that baby right to your preferred orientation and I’ll stop complaining about pointless bars at the side of other people’s portrait content.
If you want, I can go back through my canara roll and delete everything that’s in portrait just in case I’m ever tempted to sell it to a news organisation. I’ll make sure to only ever post landscape content to whatsapp, signal and especially tiktok and instagram, because otherwise some relative, friend or random Internet user might share it in portrait.
You’re right. That’s definitely a better solution than not putting annoying fuzzy bars on portrait content.
I hate the conflation of hours in a seat being a measure of productivity. How about actually measuring work product and quality versus amount of hours spent producing that work product. It’s just like when coders were judged based on lines of code versus whether the code is high quality.
In August, remote or hybrid job posts attracted more than one-half of all applications in 157 of the largest metro areas, according to LinkedIn data analyzed by Bloomberg. All the while, the number of hybrid or remote job posts has declined since 2022.
So companies that allow remote work will have the pick of the best applicants, while those without will be left with anyone who can't get a remote job. This will make in-person companies less effective and productive, especially because studies are showing remote work is more productive.
But at least their commercial property values won't go down. So that's nice.
Why would I do that instead of going to the office of my company? Besides, knowing me, my productivity wouldn’t be much better if any compared to at home
It also means that remote employers can pay less for better talent due to the intense competition. It’s somewhat of a win-win, as it results in cost savings for companies while allowing workers to choose if they prefer flexibility of remote work versus a higher paycheck. I imagine that the pay doesn’t make much of a difference in pocket money when considering commuting costs and higher CoL in areas closer to jobs.
I mean, companies that forced back to office had massive exoduses. It makes sense that they have to pay more to find replacements. I personally went from fully remote to hybrid and nearly doubled my salary.
Any company who sees that by going fully remote they pay less for better workers and avoid paying for office space and doesn't do it is going to see investor backlash.
The McDonald’s kiosks are hands down the absolute fucking worst I’ve ever seen. With all the self checkout systems that work perfectly easily McDonald’s chose utter shite. I quit going just because of how shitty they are.
This is going to sound like corporate shilling but the mcdonalds app is even better, it’s like your own personal ordering tablet that doesn’t have other people’s germs on it and you can even pre order and check in so they start preparing your food before you enter the building.
Oh yeah, the app is probably even more convenient, especially with the pre-checkin, and the hygiene too, but there is no way I’m using that tracking bundle 😂. When I was born, nobody was counting how many burgers I was eating, and I’m not going to allow that to change. It’s a shame too because they hide all the actually good deals in the app, the ones that make eating there actually affordable, so I find myself not even going to eat there anymore. I feel like a rube paying the full price. Probably better for me in the long run anyway.
These reverse-ATM cashboxes Work really Well. I have Seen those in some grocery stores. At least in Germany you can actually choose to pay by card or by cash. If you choose to pay by cash you get your receipt and then pay by a cashier.
Last time I went to McDonald’s there was a mess up and I was given the cash difference, I really dunno when I’ll use it offhand. I’m also in Canada, never had a use for cash after recreational weed happened. Weird they make someone go through unknown keypressss to do cash, vending machines do cash why not just be convenient for customers? Oh right, paying people to deal with the cash, cause that’d hurt McDonald’s bottom line heh.
I actually am on the opposite end of the spectrum, I think cash is pointless, it’s less secure, less authentic and prone to issues. Just make the swap to digital or cards, most checking or savings accounts are 100% free, there’s better protections involved, you don’t need to worry about breaking large bills, don’t need to worry about the shop not having change, easy to track as it’s super easy to just look at your transaction history. Balance is super simple, instead of needing to count the cash I can just pull up the account.
It’s just easier. I think cash should be optional for establishments, it’s better for everyone involved both consumer and business.
I know all yall Europeans are proud about your nearly total transition to cashless economy or whatever, and you like to boast how not a single euro banknote has graced the inside of your wallet in months.
Tell me you’ve never been to Germany without telling me you’ve never been to Germany
I’ve seen that on Lemmy many times. “I’m in Europe and we only have tap to pay and contactless pay and psychic powers to pay and it’s been that way for the last 700 years.”
We really are just catering to a society of antisocial nerds that hate interacting with people and will destroy the jobs of all those they seem lesser than them huh?
But don’t worry those people can go finger paint or something. See it’s kind and a utopia. Says the people that want this because they don’t have to pay or deal with others. Utopia. For sure.
Well, better than forcing everyone to be social and have service people break down over yet an other arrogant karen who thinks they should get special treatment and doesn’t see service people as actual people but more like peons they are allowed to order around.
Uhh no social contracts are how we keep society moving. People need to interact with other people to be reminded other humans and perspectives exist.
This is exactly how we get all this NPC bullshit. Antisocial garbage like this seen as the better option by secluding everyone in their own micro reality. It only serves capitalism and the insane.
mildlyinteresting
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.