https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7CGZlBCUc
>>52339522
What, 60fps? Why not?
>>52339522
What, young women baring their legs? Why not?
>>52340834
You can see their...rumps.
>>52340849
>Dat pancake ass
I'm sick of vertical videos too OP
>360p60
Wait, what?
They can do that?
>>52340849
>flat ass
>>52340906
Are you retarded ?
>>52340897
This
>>52339522
What, verticalkvideo? I hate that too. The asians were good, but 2D has desensitized me. They're still cute cute tough, I wonder hoe many dicks they took to get there.
>>52340897
>>52340977
your options are
- horizontal (with lots of content to the left and right that nobody cares about, and loss of detail at equivalent resolutions)
- same recording, but rotated so everyone's on their side
- the status quo (vertical video, 1080x1920 or whatever, but in 9x16, not 16x9)
The first option loses detail. Opting for that is stupid.
The second option doesn't really solve any problems. On the contrary, to view everyone properly you have to transform the video feed, which is a pain in the ass (you have to download the video, for one thing).
That leaves the status quo.
so whats the original not live version of this song
![snapshot_04.29_[2015.12.23_22.12.20].png](https://i.imgur.com/S7ltYMS.jpg "snapshot_04.29_[2015.12.23_22.12.20].png")
looks like shit
>>52339522
normies are idiots
>>52340922
Are you?
>>52341026
Great points. But to be fair, in this case there's a whole line of other hot dancers that are being cropped out, and which one's in the frame keeps changing as they move around.
Maybe OP is asking why Youtube's player leaves massive black bars on either side, instead of resizing to fit the vertical video. But then I guess the controls would get cramped or need rearranging, and seeking would be less precise.
>>52340868
This.
There's nothing there. What fun is that?
>>52341026
>- horizontal (with lots of content to the left and right that nobody cares about, and loss of detail at equivalent resolutions)
You only lose detail if it maintains 1080x1920 (aka 1920x1920 with black bars)
Which it doesn't. It gets converted into 1920x1080 which means you get a the same detail as a 1920x1080 recording, roughly.
Of course, the original remains 1080x1920, and if it shows up on youtube at a higher resolution than 1080 you'll get more detail in that resolution.
>>52341212
>there's a whole line of other hot dancers that are being cropped out, and which one's in the frame keeps changing as they move around.
There are two issues here:
1) Getting the other dancers would mean zooming out and getting less detail. All else being equal, I'd rather have one dancer in higher detail than a bunch of smaller dancers.
2) There's no fix for poor camerawork other than learning how to hold a camera and stabilize it on one subject.
>Maybe OP is asking why Youtube's player leaves massive black bars on either side,
The issues you brought up were essentially the issues Youtube is probably dealing with. We could be discussing portrait vs landscape orientations of 16x9, but the truth is that this issue is about supporting *arbitrary* aspect ratios without black bars. Everything from 1:1 to 21:9 and beyond, including rotations for all of them (in the 1:1 case that's not a big deal, but 9:21 would be a mess).
To say nothing of having to deal with controls, page layout would get fucked. Besides, using youtube-dl I can confirm that the video they send is in fact 16:9, just in portrait orientation. So if you get the video file itself, it's not adding black bars (the way it used to).
>>52341311
>(aka 1920x1920 with black bars)
Sorry, that should be 3413x1920.
>>52341311
no, I'm saying that a 1920x1080 recording of someone from head to toes will have higher detail recorded in portrait orientation than landscape would afford, since landscape would require you to zoom out optically to get the person's entire body in the shot.
Which is fine if you want to capture everyone on the stage, but if you just want to maximize detail of a single person you find attractive, then you want to record in portrait orientation to fill the frame/sensor with the subject you want.
This isn't a composition/aesthetic thing as much as it is a technical utilization question. 16x9 in horizontal orientation looks more pleasing, but if you want to maximize the detail of a single person in a video or photo, you generally want to record in portrait orientation to fill the frame with them.
>>52340868
Some people are not niggers and don't care about the place where a girl shits from.
Just buy a square monitor, then it vertical and horizontal video is all the same
Best compromise
>>52341426
I wasn't talking about her asshole, I was talking about her ass.
Some people are not assumptive and don't care about the place where a person spews them from.
>>52341437
You're retarded
>>52341437
A square monitor is the sort of thing that you'd expect to see come out of a log-jammed committee fighting over one solution optimizing for A and another solution optimizing for B. They'd ultimately settle for a solution that sucks miserably at both, and you're spinning it by saying "it's equally good at A and B", when "equally good" means "it's shit at both".
>>52341462
There's nothing factually wrong with this post:
>>52341437
>>52341476
Factually, no, but the idea of having a square monitor for the sole purpose of horizontal and vertical videos taking up the same amount of space is idiotic
>>52341499
Is that so.
It's also perfect for globes.
is that recording off a phone? what kind of phone?
>>52341054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEYOyZVWlzs
found it for you senpai, luckily for you i wanted to listen to it too
>>52341508
You know what a widescreen could show more efficiently?
>>52341499
>>52341468
The square monitor can display 2 vertical 9:16 or 16:9 videos at the same time with almost no borders
>>52341517
Because it is larger. Durp.
>>52341401
that only makes sense if screen people are viewing it on is in portrait and the person in the video isn't moving.
>>52341026
That logic is inconsistent and pretentious, vertical video is never the correct option and only happens because stupid people don't know how to record things properly.
>>52341662
>i don't have portrait monitor
not as good as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qmsJbJasfo
>>52341515
Landscapes.
Basically anything where you want to see wider than tall.
>>52341742
>30fps
pls go
>>52341696
If it gets converted to widescreen, by uploading to youtube or being played on TV, then having a portrait monitor doesn't help at all.
It's fine if you took the video and keep the original recording though.
>>52341517
but what if you made the square monitor in that picture wider so it was 16:9?
>>52341515
I chortled
>>52339522
>hating on hot chicks
seems op was born to be a faggot
>>52341955
>hot
>no tits
>no ass
>half a mile of makeup
>>52341999
Still better than anything you could ever score
>>52342040
So your definition of hot is now based on what I can score?
That's some low standards mate.
The more similarity there is between men and women, the more the responsibility of raising children is shared. Canada Geese are a great example of this - males and females look nearly identical, and they share equal responsibility in raising goslings.
This phenomenon also applies to humans. Africans have the most prominent differences between the sexes. Their females have large buttocks, large breasts, and are much shorter than African males. The males have large penises and a tall, slender build. African males and females also split the responsibility of child rearing the most unevenly. The entire task falls solely on the female, while the male typically leaves the family before the young is even born.
Asian men and women typically show very little difference in terms of physical appearance. Asian women are flat chested and certainly have very little adipose tissue in their buttocks. Asian men typically have very small penises. By and large, Asian men and women look nearly identical to each other. And just like the Canadian Geese, they share parental responsibility nearly 50-50. In modern Asian society, we even see males dressing like females and being accepted socially - unthinkable in African culture!
>>52342071
Literally what
>>52342071
Why are Africans so based but African Americans so shit?
Is it because they were keked by the whites?
>>52342096
The answer to that question can be traced back to the late 1800's with the advent of niggerhide. Niggerhide is made from the skin of wild field negroes. It is tough, yet supple and makes excellent boots. The production of niggerhide led to selective breeding - an unforeseen consequence at the time. Negative personality traits are linked to a gene that also leads to excellent niggerhide. The negroes you see today were bred to produce high quality niggerhide, but those negative personality traits are a reminder to us all.
>>52341002
dumb moeposter.
>>52342386
fuck off back to reddit
![[Zurako] Sora no Woto - 07.5 - Drinking Party - Fortress Battle (BD 1080p AAC) [F7DF16F7].mkv_snapshot_20.02_[2016.01.10_01.28.01].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j6Njq9s.jpg "[Zurako] Sora no Woto - 07.5 - Drinking Party - Fortress Battle (BD 1080p AAC) [F7DF16F7].mkv_snapshot_20.02_[2016.01.10_01.28.01].jpg")
>>52342386
I thought it more of a drunk post. Oh well.
>>52341426
>sterile, infertile, pasty, whitey detected.
>>52342071
cuck detected
although it is true that all white women want big black cock
>>52340897
koreans make full use of their monitors
The video is aimed to mobile users, only pc basement dwelling master race still uses horizontal displays.
>>52339522
Same reason this is allowed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or9Icf0I1k8
(NSFW)
>>52345054
HOLY SHIT WHAT
>those recommendations at the side
I... I need to watch some more educational youtube for educational purposes.
>>52345079
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiqG4cfOGk
>>52345094
weirdest boner
>>52345054
There's literal horse sex too.
>>52341508
Amazingly enough, not Earth.
>>52345120
Do they also feature some JTRHNBR?
>720p60 runs like shit on laptop
>only way to avoid stutter is 480p
>>52345136
amazingly enough, it actually is Earth
>>52345143
I only saw horse x horse, donkey x donkey, horse x donkey and other animals, no humans involved. The closest I've seen is dog sperm collection.
>>52345182
there is a video on youtube somewhere in which a indian(?) boy, about 7-10years old, fucks a sleeping dog on the street
sadly I can't find it anymore
>>52341508
lern2projections
>>52345094
>Brazilian waxing
Weird way of spelling hurt porn.
>>52345166
>earth
>360
>>52345239
what
>>52345263
That's no earth, anon...
>>52345506
you're too subtle in trolling
I don't know what you are on about
be more direct next time you try to troll around
>>52345506
Are you hinting that Earth is a geoid? Speak clearer, faggot.
>>52345136
>>52345239
>>52345506
>>52345672
wow good job
you must be bored
>>52345742
3 minutes at most
>>52339522
>liking girlgroups of 7 members where only 2 can sing
why is this allowed
North Korea was right
>>52342096
>a race of people that to this day live no better than their monkey ancestors
>a race where the average IQ would be considered mentally challenged by Western standards
>hurr y r they so based
Let me guess, you've never once to an European ghetto
