@byte[]
I can’t tell from the issue description, pull request title, nor code
what that fixed.
If it indeed fixed something relevant, then the thumbnails for the posts I cited before need to be regenerated, because all three are still squished.
Looking at the metadata, the first two posts seem to be using a “display_width” smaller than the “image_width”, while the thumbnail generation stretched the “display” size to fit the “image’ size. The third post has a “display_aspect_ratio” different from the “sample_aspect_ratio”.
The example wumbl3 linked comes up as having the same “sample” and “display” aspect ratio but a different “display” width, like the first two, above.
Data read using the website metadata2go.com which was just what came up when I searched for “view webm metadata”
The only possible reason I can think of for having these capabilities in a format are if hardware acceleration of the codec are designed specifically for 1920x1080 and not for arbitrary dimensions, which seems short-sighted, but what do I know; I’m not a chip designer.