2302 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Interviewed on an Envato blog
+6 more
urbazon says

I’ve noticed recently that preview image for videos, with dimensions of 590×332 px, get shrinked for the sake of mouse-over preview, and it gets very ugly and mispresents our videos to customers browsing VideoHive library.

Anybody else noticed this? Sorry if this has already been brought up.

1586 posts AEdorde.com - After Effects Projects
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $125,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has referred 1000+ members
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
+9 more
dorde says

Well spotted! I’ve never noticed that until now. Looks like a bug.

1595 posts
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Had an item featured in an Envato Bundle
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+6 more
AndrVlad says

590×332 addition was originally implemented with bugs. I tried it 6 month ago or so when it was added but then switched back to 590×300. 590×300 is not 16:9 so one more step to crop or scale but it works steady.

Best Regards, Andrey

2302 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Interviewed on an Envato blog
+6 more
urbazon says

590×332 addition was originally implemented with bugs. I tried it 6 month ago or so when it was added but then switched back to 590×300. 590×300 is not 16:9 so one more step to crop or scale but it works steady.

If I’m not mistaken, 590×332 was automatically cropped in previews until recently. But anyway, even if it’s cropped, it’s still not the exact way to present our work. If you think about it, you lose 10% of the information.

2302 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Interviewed on an Envato blog
+6 more
urbazon says

Is it really possible that this bothers nobody but me (and few other authors who replied)? Even no reply from staff :(

315 posts
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 2 years
  • Has been a beta tester for an Envato feature
  • Has sold $10,000+ on Envato Market
+2 more
sightsignal says

It bothers me as well… I’ve mentioned it on a couple of threads, back when it cropped the bottom of the image… I even contacted support about it…but their reply made it seem like this was a feature rather than something that needed to be fixed. Now this new mouse-over preview squashes 590×332 images down to fit the window… honestly, it’s even weirder to look at than before.

It will always surprise me how in 2013, fullHD and 16:9 image ratio pretty much reigning supreme, this marketplace can’t manage to properly showcase that image ratio.

1595 posts
  • Sells items exclusively on Envato Market
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Had an item featured in an Envato Bundle
  • Made it to the Authors' Hall of Fame
+6 more
AndrVlad says

Requesting staff reply.

Best regards, Andrey

256 posts
  • Has referred 500+ members
  • Has sold $125,000+ on Envato Market
  • Has collected 50+ items on Envato Market
  • Member of the Envato Team
+9 more
placdarms Envato team says

I guess the problem is that both sizes are accepted at once and they either make things work with one or another. For example with video embeds 590×300 looks ugly and it always did even with old player. I think it was a mistake to accept 590×300 to start with. I still remember the times when all websites were redesigned and there were huge black field on top of every item page with a tiny text: Watch preview. Authors started to embed images in description to give some visual info. Then a quick fix was introduced that allowed preview image to be uploaded. At that time it was purely based on website design and not related to 16:9 ratio in any way. I believe they should now completely switch over to 590×339 and not accept the 300px versions any more. And everywhere where those images are displayed (player embeds, roll-overs, item pages) they should be optimized to mainly support 590×332px to make authors switch over to new size for old items if they care. Right now 590×332 looks bad in rollover, 590×300 looks bad in embeds and authors are puzzled what to sacrifice. It just creates more problems and everyone still keeps uploading both sizes.

By the way, I’m stating this purely as author not as staff.

2302 posts
  • Has been part of the Envato Community for over 5 years
  • Has referred 1+ members
  • Has sold $40,000+ on Envato Market
  • Interviewed on an Envato blog
+6 more
urbazon says

I guess the problem is that both sizes are accepted at once and they either make things work with one or another. For example with video embeds 590×300 looks ugly and it always did even with old player. I think it was a mistake to accept 590×300 to start with. I still remember the times when all websites were redesigned and there were huge black field on top of every item page with a tiny text: Watch preview. Authors started to embed images in description to give some visual info. Then a quick fix was introduced that allowed preview image to be uploaded. At that time it was purely based on website design and not related to 16:9 ratio in any way. I believe they should now completely switch over to 590×339 and not accept the 300px versions any more. And everywhere where those images are displayed (player embeds, roll-overs, item pages) they should be optimized to mainly support 590×332px to make authors switch over to new size for old items if they care. Right now 590×332 looks bad in rollover, 590×300 looks bad in embeds and authors are puzzled what to sacrifice. It just creates more problems and everyone still keeps uploading both sizes. By the way, I’m stating this purely as author not as staff.

Ah, I was wondering about why they used 590×300 in the first place :) Your post clarifies that.

I agree with what you said, it’s silly to have both 590×332px and 590×300px versions. This needs optimization asap. It’s degrading general ux and I really hope it’s not affecting buyers and sales too much…

Helpful Information

  • Please read our community guidelines. Self promotion and discussion of piracy is not allowed.
  • Open a support ticket if you would like specific help with your account, deposits or purchases.
  • Item Support by authors is optional and may vary. Please see the Support tab on each item page.

Most of all, enjoy your time here. Thank you for being a valued Envato community member.

Post Reply

Format your entry with some basic HTML. Read the Full Details, or here is a refresher:

<strong></strong> to make things bold
<em></em> to emphasize
<ul><li> or <ol><li> to make lists
<h3> or <h4> to make headings
<pre></pre> for code blocks
<code></code> for a few words of code
<a></a> for links
<img> to paste in an image (it'll need to be hosted somewhere else though)
<blockquote></blockquote> to quote somebody

:grin: :shocked: :cry: Complete List of Smiley Codes

by
by
by
by
by
by