This is an extra-official debate, not considered in the current protocol but I agreed to give an extra day for the minority to express their opinions. Tomorrow at 3:00 PM (GMT -3) I will resubmit the proposal with the appropriate modifications.
Simple summary
Make clear that the definition of 360p does not literally mean 360 pixels, and that certain codecs crop 4 pixel columns from each side of the image. Submissions with 352 pixels wide should not be considered in violation with submission rules.
Abstract
This amendment proposal is a fast, immediate solution to issues related to a widespread method of video submission… It moves the minimum dimension of the width or height of 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 pixel columns are removed from the side of the picture (in the case that is background that is removed from the frame and not actual image). This amendment is final and it is not intended to serve precedent of moving the minimum any further than this.
Motivation
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 amendment 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.).
Specification
Minimum video dimensions is a square of 352 pixels by 352 pixels. Videos with equal or higher size than stated should not be considered a violation to the rule #4 of submission guidelines, since it is still considered de facto 360p. Videos equaling 351 pixels or lower in size in any of their dimensions will violate rule #4.
This is an interim resolution until more precise video quality submission guidelines are approved.
Implementation
Submission rule #4 should change the requirements as specified above and become effective immediately.
The original proposal mentioned accepting 352 as the width of vertical videos. The proposal here says a square video of 352x352 would be fine. I do not agree with that.
In my opinion, the specifications should not mention 360p at all, only minimum height and width, for the sake of clarity.
Since there is already a snapshot vote up, I’ll be voting no so as to have a proper discussion first and form consensus on how we are going to implement this.
I agree with @0x6687c671980e65ebd722b9146fc61e2471558dd6_Ethereum that the specification lacks clarity and should be more refined.
Specification
Videos with equal or higher pixel size than stated in the implementation section should not be considered a violation to the rule #4 of submission guidelines. Videos equaling 351 pixels or lower in size in any of their dimensions will violate rule #4.
This is an interim resolution until more precise video quality submission guidelines are approved.
Implementation
Change rule number #4, replacing
The video quality should be at least 360p, at most 2 minutes long, and in the
video/webm, video/MP4, video/avi or video/mov format
With
Video resolution must follow the minimum size:
Horizontal video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Vertical video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Video resolution must be at most 2 minutes long, in the video/webm, video/MP4, video/avi or video/mov format, and follow the minimum size:
Horizontal video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Vertical video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
I would eliminate the horizontal vs vertical division, as we would be accepting also square videos, which are not either.
I would rephrase as “Videos can be vertical (portrait), horizontal (landscape) or square, with both width and height bigger than or equal to 352 pixels”.
Clarifying that a vertical 352x640 video should be accepted because “360p” is not a clear enough measurement for vertical videos should not open an opportunity for videos with lesser resolutions. In this case, almost 50% less if you compare it to “Wide 360p”.
IMHO, the Phase 2 proposal was about “accepting 352 as width in vertical video submissions”, as the title says: “HIP-8 [Phase-2]: Accept 352 as width in vertical video submissions”.
Agree with @dario that the unit should be in the title.
Thank you all for your feedback. The main argument used by challengers has been identical and referred to “less than 360p in one of its dimensions” so 352 pixels in any dimension as a minimum is the way to go. Although I’m against to be redundant in the part of text that refers to width and height, it is good so that there is the least wiggle room for opportunism.
I hope to work together with you in the delineation of better video submission guidelines in the future.
So if there is no further comments the final proposal version would change the following:
Title From
Accept 352 as minimum dimension in video submissions To
Accept 352 pixels minimum dimension in video submissions
Implementation section Implementation
Change the text of rule number #4, replacing this block of text:
The video quality should be at least 360p, at most 2 minutes long, and in the
video/webm, video/MP4, video/avi or video/mov format
With this block of text:
Video submissions must follow all of the following requirements:
at most 2 minutes long,
in the video/webm, video/MP4, video/avi or video/mov format,
vertical (portrait), horizontal (landscape) or square,
and follow the minimum size:
Minimum height: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
I would suggest to skip the aspect ratio specification (portrait/landscape/sq) cause it does not add anything useful to the requirements, instead just specify the minimum pixel size in any dimension to make it as concise and brief as possible.
Unfortunately, we’ve learnt that conciseness is friend of speculation.
User @martijn from the Telegram group added a suggestion to change
“Video submissions must be:”
to
“Video submissions must follow all of the following requirements:”
I don’t think the amount of pixels is irrelevant at this stage, actually I think it’s the opposite. It paves the way to rule out videos with black bars or unusable sections (which I think is a no-brainer - easy to understand, easy to check, easy to judge), and then sets the stage where we can down the line set some rule like: “the human (or human face) must cover at least 50% of the video for at least 3 seconds, or something along these lines.”
So I would vote yes for something like:
Video resolution must be at most 2 minutes long, in the video/webm, video/MP4, video/avi or video/mov format, and follow the minimum size:
Horizontal video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 360 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 640 pixels
Vertical video
Minimum height in pixels: equal to or higher than 640 pixels
Minimum width in pixels: equal to or higher than 352 pixels
Regarding locking the aspect ratio, I’d agree it might generate some opportunities for challenges. However notice that once we set a clear minimum resolution, the dev team can easily code the submit page to reject videos that do not comply with it. Once we have that, we won’t have this problem.
I agree this is incomplete, but it is an emergency and interim measure that certainly do not cover all the issues. That will require more time to discuss. There are currently several profiles being challenged because of the flawed 360p rule, and the full update on the guidelines is going to take probably months to discuss.
So the objective of this HIP-8 is to replace an imprecise policy with another imprecise policy.
I don´t believe this is the correct solution.
The way should be to explain to the jurors the spirit of this guideline and if it is relevant or not the 8 pixels that are missing (which I agree is ridiculous).
A good defense in the challenged cases should suffice.
Thank you for your feedback and comments. I wish we had more time than the time we had in Phase 2 which was the moment to discuss all of this but debate must reach an end at some point, especially given that it is an urgent situation. Signalling vote thought that this is a necessary amendment.
I included most of the modifications suggested here and now it will be the polls that decide if they aggree or not with the final full version of proposal that follows:
Title HIP-8: Accept 352 pixels as minimum dimension in video submissions