2022 posts
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Contributed a Blog Post
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Interviewed on the Envato Notes blog
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Referred between 1 and 9 users
  • Serbia
+1 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.

1490 posts AEdorde.com - After Effects Projects
  • Elite Author
  • Sold between 100 000 and 250 000 dollars
  • Exclusive Author
  • Referred between 1000 and 1999 users
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Bought between 50 and 99 items
  • Beta Tester
+4 more
dorde says

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

1475 posts
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Russian Federation
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Referred between 10 and 49 users
  • Bought between 10 and 49 items
  • Grew a moustache for the Envato Movember competition
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

2022 posts
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Contributed a Blog Post
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Interviewed on the Envato Notes blog
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Referred between 1 and 9 users
  • Serbia
+1 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.

2022 posts
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Contributed a Blog Post
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Interviewed on the Envato Notes blog
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Referred between 1 and 9 users
  • Serbia
+1 more
urbazon says

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

221 posts
  • Exclusive Author
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Bought between 10 and 49 items
  • Referred between 1 and 9 users
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.

1475 posts
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Russian Federation
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Referred between 10 and 49 users
  • Bought between 10 and 49 items
  • Grew a moustache for the Envato Movember competition
AndrVlad says

Requesting staff reply.

Best regards, Andrey

216 posts
  • Elite Author
  • Envato Staff
  • Reviewer
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Bought between 50 and 99 items
  • Referred between 500 and 999 users
  • Sold between 100 000 and 250 000 dollars
  • Latvia
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
+5 more
placdarms Reviewer 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.

2022 posts
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Contributed a Blog Post
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • Interviewed on the Envato Notes blog
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Referred between 1 and 9 users
  • Serbia
+1 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…

by
by
by
by
by
by