YouTube In Widescreen!

YouTube has finally made their in-page viewer to a widescreen format.

Pros: Native 16:9 videos are now HUGE and un-letterboxed, and look great.

Cons: All existing 4:3 videos, including widescreen videos that were letterboxed by the video uploader - now have black pillar bars on the side. Also, native 16:9 support didn't even exist until May 2008 - so EVERY video uploaded before then will have pillar bars.

UPDATE FROM YOUTUBE (May, 2009):
* New Options for Uploaders: In our continued effort to give you ultimate control over how your videos are presented, uploaders can now tweak the appearance of their video when played on YouTube or in an embedded player. Just insert any of the hint tags below into the tags field of your video and voila!

yt:crop=16:9 (zooms in on the 16:9 area, removes windowboxing)
yt:stretch=16:9 (fixes anamorphic content by scaling to 16:9)
yt:stretch=4:3 (fixes 720x480 content that is the wrong aspect ratio by scaling to 4:3)
yt:quality=high (default to a high quality stream, depending on availability)

++++++++++++++++++++

Filmed & Edited by Jonathan Paula.
An ideo Production - © 2008.

#82 - Most Discussed (Today)
#3 - Most Discussed (Today) - Science & Technology
#2 - Featured - Science & Technology
#7 - Most Discussed (This Week) - Science & Technology
#24 - Most Discussed (This Month) - Science & Technology
#35 - Most Responded (This Week) - Science & Technology
#56 - Most Responded (This Month) - Science & Technology
#18 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Science & Technology
#46 - Top Favorited (This Week) - Science & Technology
#5 - Top Rated (This Week) - Science & Technology
#18 - Top Rated (This Month) - Science & Technology

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• youtube
• widescreen
• viewer
• full
• screen
• 16:9
• 4:3
• video
• format
• aspect
• ratio
• options
• change
• live
• blog

[2BunnyReturns]

See, people think widescreen is usually higher resolution than a squarer monitor, when in fact, when comparing a traditional 1280x1024 monitor to a 720p screen, you'll find that 1280x720 is pretty much a 1280x1024(square) monitor with the top and bottom cut off, so you get the raw end of the deal. Too Bad.

[JPizzle1122]

2BunnyReturns - No, I don't think people think that at all. Resolution, and aspect ratio are two entirely different things.

Widescreen, as an aspect ratio is larger than a regular 4:3 ratio. If you happen to be stuck with some old and busted 4:3 monitor... well, that would be the "too bad".

- Jon

[2BunnyReturns]

I think you have misunderstood me here:

What you'll find, is that aspect ratio is independent of resolution.

Example in a common myth: 720p is "higher definition" than a 3:2 aspect ratio square monitor from 2004.

BUSTED.

Multiply it out:

1280X720p=921,600

1280X1024p=1,310,720

921600<1,310,720

720p <1024p

See? Oh, its not an old busted 4:3 monitor at all. Although I've got one of those too...

[JPizzle1122]

2BunnyReturns - I think the main problem here is that you're applying film principals of video formats to computer monitors - where such things don't matter.

Again, I don't think anyone thinks widescreen is higher resolution than square monitor - everyone KNOWS it's a higher resolution than square film/movies. This is nothing to do with monitors.

- Jon

[2BunnyReturns]

See, you're confused again: A screen is a screen regardless of PHYSICAL size or inputs that it has on the back.

A computer monitor and television screen are essentially the same thing. All I am saying is that Widescreen is not necessarily higher resolution than squarer resolutions.

1280X1024 (square computer screen) = 1,310,720

1280X720 (720p "telly" or computer monitor) = 921,600

Is 1.3 Million not larger than .92 Million?

Now, a MOVIE taken on FILM instead of modern standards is different.

[JPizzle1122]

2BunnyReturns - I'm not confused... you're creating an issue where one doesn't exist:

If the monitors are of comparable physical sizes - the widescreen monitors will always have more pixels. It's as simple as that. You're literally just arguing that 2 is more than 1. Yeah... we know!

For example, the resolution on one of my monitors is 1920x1200. That's more than 1600x1200... isn't it? Obviously. Again, NO ONE doesn't know this already - you're confusing people's opinions with nonsense

- Jon

[PyroDavis]

You Blink Like 20 Times More Than Normal People :L

[Love4Destruction]

wow you blink alot.

[SuperTomServo]

@JPizzle1122 jon i film on a 720p hd camera and edit on a monitor that lets me watch 720p videos and i render my videos in 720-30p and when i look back at the footage its all widescreen for my viewer's viewing pleasure is that ok?

p.s it video and audio codecs are wmv and wma.

[motersk313]

Question: How long can u Stop Blinking (Ad)

Answer: 0.3 Seconds

[2BunnyReturns]

@TheTigerStrike

We're not talking about particular displays, we were talking about resolution. And before you get too wrapped up in talking to yourself about other nonsense, let 2 Bunny lay down the bottom line:

Having a certain aspect ratio does not necessarily automatically guarantee a higher or lower resolution as you seem to think. Any calculator could tell you that.

Sweet, now that we've got that out of the way, would you like to subscribe to my channel? ☺

[TheTigerStrike]

@2BunnyReturns You brought it to Jon's attention, and you brought up a projector rather than a monitor.

It's a projector for one. Two: the Red Epic displays footage shot with its camera counter-part. What would I display on a 2500x2000 projector?

[2BunnyReturns]

@TheTigerStrike

I don't know where you got either of those from. We weren't specifically talking about CRT projectors or about 4:3 monitors being of better resolution than their "widescreen counterparts".

As for your 260 Megapixel monitor being "so great" (I don't own a Sony G90 either, for the record, although I do accept donations ☺), what would you display on that? We hardly have any content bigger than 720p or 1080p.

Phew... Finally...

Are you done making a fool of yourself now?

[TheTigerStrike]

@2BunnyReturns So, we're talking about CRT projectors now? I thought it was a discussion of how 4:3 monitors were larger than their widescreen counterparts.

BTW the Red Epics kick the ass of Sony G90 which is 28000X9334 (261,352,000). Isn't that just the slightest bit more?

[2BunnyReturns]

@TheTigerStrike

Eh, not quite: I'm comparing both horizontally and vertically (unlike what you just wrote), and it only serves to make yourself look bad. It also doesn't help you that the biggest monitor on the market is aspect ratio independent:

Sony G90 CRT Projector. Maximum resolution of 2500x2000 (total of up to 5,000,000 pixels versus your "amazing" 2560x1600, only 4,096,000 - almost a full million less) and a nice 92+" Screen size. Better contrast ratio too.

☺

[TheTigerStrike]

@2BunnyReturns The thing is that, you're comparing one sidedly and incessantly and it only serves to make yourself look bad. It also doesn't help you that the biggest monitor on the market is widescreen (clocking in at 2560X1600).

[2BunnyReturns]

@megaspeed2

Correct, but we are comparing 1280x1024 to 1280x720. In your 1280x720 versus 960x720 example, the vertical resolution is the same, whereas in the example we are actually talking about, it is the horizonal resolution that remains the same. Your eyeballs focus on whatever is in front of them, and you're not seeing any "less resolution" because you're watching a different aspect ratio. To your eyes it doesn't matter; Resolution is Resolution.

[2BunnyReturns]

@TheTigerStrike

That's not how the resolutions are. The only way they could be compared using the vertical resolution was if the vertical resolution was the same (I.E. 1366x768 versus 1024x768), but if you are comparing 1280x1024 to 1280x720, all "720p" is is cut off. See where I'm going? It can be either one, depending on if your monitors in question have a consistent horizontal or vertical resolution.