I never said it’s lower quality. Not once.
No? This you?
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.
It’s such a shitty experience if content can only be consumed on certain platforms, which is what it sounds like you’re proposing.
Watching portrait footage on a TV sucks, dude.
But the fuzzy bars on the side make it great?!?
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.
Like I already said, the technology for writing a webpage
And yet most videos on websites are still proper horizontal. You can maximize and turn your phone. Everyone wins.
