tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post1983266134093333251..comments2023-05-01T08:29:33.624-07:00Comments on .sony: Round 4brandon lewishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17046865031973847470noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-7862774054536172802010-11-23T11:32:38.301-08:002010-11-23T11:32:38.301-08:00Like most others here, I'm for option B. It m...Like most others here, I'm for option B. It might seem a little more verbose, but I think it leads to a better overall understanding of what the user is actually doing.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17525528184027708073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-64734684670849804042010-11-21T10:57:13.257-08:002010-11-21T10:57:13.257-08:00I have to agree with most others, B makes the most...I have to agree with most others, B makes the most sense for someone that just wants to enter information that is displayed either on the camera or in a videoplayer.RayBlenderhttp://www.rayblender.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-91789801122128038262010-11-19T14:12:56.866-08:002010-11-19T14:12:56.866-08:00My suggestion is to create a kind of simplified co...My suggestion is to create a kind of simplified combination of both:<br /><br /><b>Size (Pixels)</b><br />[720 ] x [576 ]<br />[] Constrain aspect ratio<br /><br /><b>Aspect Ratio</b><br />O Auto (Square pixels) . . 4:3<br />O Custom . . . . . . . . . . . [Standard (4:3) V]<br /><br />Or alternatively make it even simpler by removing radio button selection and making "Auto / square pixels" one item (and default) in aspect ratio dropdown:<br /><br /><b>Size (Pixels)</b><br />[720 ] x [576 ]<br />[] Constrain aspect ratio<br /><br /><b>Aspect Ratio</b><br />[Auto (square pixels) V] . . [4:3 ]tnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-46621732554643047672010-11-19T01:14:44.789-08:002010-11-19T01:14:44.789-08:00I vote for B too !
most of the time, even someone...I vote for B too !<br /><br />most of the time, even someone who is confident with video editing do not knew anything about pixel ratios. <br />We think with Size and aspect ratio, and pixels ratio follows.<br /><br />Thanks for your work !Yagraphhttp://www.yagraph.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-42266260889624410652010-11-18T18:40:43.848-08:002010-11-18T18:40:43.848-08:00My hunch is to vote for B (note: I didn't look...My hunch is to vote for B (note: I didn't look at the comments beforehand).<br /><br />Now, on further observation, I think B is definitely a bit clearer:<br />- less columns/more natural flow<br />- it doesn't seem to "force" you to care about "pixel shape"; I think I understand it, but as a user I don't *want* to care about it. Mockup B seems to allow a less technical workflow: you set the resolution and maybe set global display aspect ratio and you're done (1-2 steps). With mockup A, it feels like more steps.<br /><br />Might be just a trick being played on my mind though.Jeff Fortinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08983597888344195463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-88338126806575223612010-11-18T17:12:44.507-08:002010-11-18T17:12:44.507-08:00Definitely B and would it be too much to add a vid...Definitely B and would it be too much to add a video format option in there? It would make it a lot easier for a user to select that along with the res settings in the same menu.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-90304152832668240492010-11-18T14:46:34.287-08:002010-11-18T14:46:34.287-08:00I like the 5th revision, I don't know why. It ...I like the 5th revision, I don't know why. It just looks cleaner to me.paxnovemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04405659629966416155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-42268198464068204152010-11-18T14:22:55.131-08:002010-11-18T14:22:55.131-08:00I vote B.
Other things you might need (now or down...I vote B.<br />Other things you might need (now or down-the-road): scan mode (progressive, interlace top-field-first, interlace bottom-field-first) and colorspace (ITU Rec. 601, ITU Rec. 709, etc.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03082309413113233049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-16211808862404005592010-11-18T12:38:48.623-08:002010-11-18T12:38:48.623-08:00I think both are nice, but having the option to sp...I think both are nice, but having the option to specify the display aspect ratio directly in terms of "16:9" and not in pixels is needed; for example, my camcorder saves MPEG2 and the original image is 16:9 but right now I cannot use PiTiVi because it cannot save in 16:9.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-41354085297568208672010-11-18T12:36:49.140-08:002010-11-18T12:36:49.140-08:00B makes more sense to me.
Is it easy to add some ...B makes more sense to me.<br /><br />Is it easy to add some help text to help newbies make a decision or stick with the default?Arun Raghavanhttp://arunraghavan.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6827527823540310316.post-73692781615244139352010-11-18T12:14:23.578-08:002010-11-18T12:14:23.578-08:00I'd go for B.
Presenting squared vs. rectangu...I'd go for B.<br /><br />Presenting squared vs. rectangular pixels upfront can be confusing if the concept is unknown. In option B, however, more can be deducted when toying with the first options.<br /><br />An updated "Pixel aspect ratio: ____" on every change can also help understand the implications of fiddling with the frame or display geometry, like option A shows.Daniel Díaznoreply@blogger.com