Warning: Heavy edits to meet the DAO Governance process
Reduce the requirement of 360 pixels wide in vertical videos, because its based in an inherited analogic tv-era standard.
This amendment proposal is a fast, immediate solution to issues related to my other post. It moves the minimum dimension of the width of vertical videos from 360 to 352 to match what is currently capable in the most widespread technology available. The 8 pixels removed cropped by the codec due to ancient PAL analogue norm is not moving the line too much and it fits the technical capability of current widespread technology. It is not realistic to challenge a person because 8 pixels are removed from the side of the picture (in the case that is background that is removed from the frame and not actual image). It is not intended to move the line any further than that.
The most common and easy way for a lay user to submit and transfer a video without additional installations or knowledge is sending it via WhatsApp and downloading it through WhatsApp web. In order to avoid opportunistic challengers that predate in these submissions, that would otherwise be a good-faith submission, an urgent ammendment to this policy should be put in place. It would also lift some artificial and clunky methods that current new users are using that degrades the platform in order to meet the requirements (re-encoding video, padding to sides of it, etc.).
I agree, excellent job in exposing this problem. I think it would be very helpful to propose it now before the problem escalates.
Not sure this needs a vote - I think it could simply be solved as a bug.
Apparently it needs a vote because opportunistic challengers are vulturing the pending registries.
No, definitely no. If they accept 352, why not 350? With the same arguments? And then 340? Why not 240x240?
There has to be a limit, and it was set at 360.
I agree that there should be clearer and broader specs regarding both dimensions, percentage of face in the picture, bitrate, etc. But 352: no.
That’s a slippery slope fallacy and not a valid argument. I’m giving the justifications for this case in particular and you should address those if you want to refute this.
352 is not a video standard supported by any organization. If it changes it should match ISO or any selected standard.
I’m all for not changing it tho.
However I would support any other proposal in order to generate better frontend tools to capturate the video and the profile picture without this human induced variance.
It matches the codec specifications of the 16x16 block and why a 360 video is cropped 4 pixels each side to fit the codec specs. It would be hard to normatize it anyways because mobile cameras form factors are not standardized.
I correct myself, it is NTSC
SIF (525) 240p 352×240 84,480 4:3 NTSC-standard VCD / super-long-play DVD. Narrow/tall pixels.
It could be accepted as an standard.
I still would vote NO to any change in resolution towards the lower end.