2019-02-27, 20:38
The forum is doing what you asked by adding width=1280 height=720 to your image tag, but the width is constrained by CSS to 50% of its container which is substantially less than 1280px so it's reduced the width of your image to fit. The browser can fit the height of 720 - so it does. The result is a deformed image. When you leave out width and height, the browser realises it cannot fit the full width of the image so it does the sensible thing and scales both width and height to match - because you allowed it to.
The issue is not with the forum or browser. It's because you are insisting the image should be displayed bigger than the available space - the browser is doing the best it can with limited information. On the other hand if you specified a width of 400 and height 225 (which does fit) you would see it in the correct aspect ratio.
FWIW, I would have removed the ability to specify width and height and let CSS do its thing. But then someone could come up with a use case in which specifying exact height and width is necessary!
Andy
The issue is not with the forum or browser. It's because you are insisting the image should be displayed bigger than the available space - the browser is doing the best it can with limited information. On the other hand if you specified a width of 400 and height 225 (which does fit) you would see it in the correct aspect ratio.
FWIW, I would have removed the ability to specify width and height and let CSS do its thing. But then someone could come up with a use case in which specifying exact height and width is necessary!
Andy
