1323
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
1323 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60112 readers
3886 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Have done this several times for content on Disney+. I have an ultrawide, HDR1000 display. The movie I'm trying to watch is in 21:9 and available in HDR. Why in God's name are you delivering it in SDR and in a letterboxed 16:9 which is in turn pillarboxed on my display?!
This so much. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford enough streaming services to cover the majority of what I want to watch (although that's changing for the worse over time). I just want to pipe them all through Kodi or some other software into a unified interface that is media source agnostic, that can also stream the content in the best quality available for my screen.
At that point the content is already paid for, I don't need to use your own individual reinvention of the interface that inevitably focuses on pushing uninteresting content instead of making it as easy as possible to continue what I've already started watching or to find what I want.
Also none of the apps have any kind of audio equalizer or range compression, so if you don't have an audio receiver then you're doomed to constantly turning up the volume for spoken sections. Absolute minimum viable product garbage.
For sure. Why should I suffer umpteen different video interfaces designed by separate entities who aren't really in the business of designing highly functional video interfaces? I'd much rather play everything in
mpv, which I can configure exactly the way I like it. I can adjust brightness and contrast, set up specific keyboard/mouse controls, adjust subtitle font/size/color/style/location, and I can even enable motion interpolation if I want to. I can fix those stupid hardcoded letterboxes with a keystroke. I can monomize or normalize audio. That's because mpv's entire reason to exist is to be a highly functional video player, and it's open and extensible.Fuck your proprietary bare-minimum video interfaces. Even YouTube lags like 5-10 years behind the state of the art for video players, and most other services lag years behind YouTube.
Do one thing and do it well!
Fully agree. Shit makes me so mad.
It's the same reason most car infotainment centers are awful. They aren't software companies so their software sucks
I wonder how many Youtube users today ever used it when it used quicktime player, you could actually pause and buffer the entire video, it wouldn't ever jump into an ad, it was the glory days. Aside from the fact it took a few minutes to load at times ahah.