2 Replies Latest reply: May 3, 2011 9:49 AM by Mary Swift RSS

    Video quality: full screen vs. default view

    Mary Swift

      Hi all, not sure if this is the right group to post this question to. I posted in the support group and haven't gotten a response, so I thought I'd try here.

       

      When we upload videos, is there a way to constrain the full-size view? What's happening is the default view is too small to see what's going on in the video, so you click to enlarge it to full size and that is so large that the quality is degrading. The video is quite blurry for the first 20 - 30 seconds and then it seems to settle in and become better, but still much lower quality than we would like.

       

      If we could change the full size view to be somewhere in between the default/preview size and the current full-size view, I think we might have a solution.

       

      Anyone know if this is possible?

       

      Thanks,

      Mary

        • Re: Video quality: full screen vs. default view
          Nicolas Steinmetz

          Hi,

           

          Where are your videos coming from ? The jive video module or the Youtube/Dailymotion/... macro ?

           

          For the latter one, you should be able to set the size of the widget in Spaces > Settings > Filter & Macros BUT if you use 4.5.5, there is a bug that prevent this height/width to be updated (bug JIVE-4193)

            • Re: Video quality: full screen vs. default view
              Mary Swift

              Hello and thanks Nicolas!

               

              My colleague is producing the videos on her local machine and then uploading them to our Jive community, and I assume she is using the Jive video module, but I'll need to check with her.

               

              We're still seeking a solution, either by way of producing the video output differently or ... an as yet unknown option.

               

              I was really hoping to be able to specify the size of the full-screen option somehow.

               

              Thanks again for your reply,

              Mary