Why was YouTube thumbnail `objectFit` changed from `cover` to `contain`?

[maximepvrt]

🐛 The bug

<ScriptYouTubePlayer
 thumbnail-size="maxresdefault"
 ref="video"
 above-the-fold
 :video-id="video"
 :style="{aspectRatio: '9/16'}"
 >
 <template #awaitingLoad>
 <div class="absolute left-1/2 top-1/2 transform -translate-x-1/2 -translate-y-1/2 h-[48px] w-[68px]">
 <svg height="100%" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 68 48" width="100%"><path d="M66.52,7.74c-0.78-2.93-2.49-5.41-5.42-6.19C55.79,.13,34,0,34,0S12.21,.13,6.9,1.55 C3.97,2.33,2.27,4.81,1.48,7.74C0.06,13.05,0,24,0,24s0.06,10.95,1.48,16.26c0.78,2.93,2.49,5.41,5.42,6.19 C12.21,47.87,34,48,34,48s21.79-0.13,27.1-1.55c2.93-0.78,4.64-3.26,5.42-6.19C67.94,34.95,68,24,68,24S67.94,13.05,66.52,7.74z" fill="#f00" /><path d="M 45,24 27,14 27,34" fill="#fff" /></svg>
 </div>
 </template>
 </ScriptYouTubePlayer>

🛠️ To reproduce

x

🌈 Expected behavior

I noticed that the objectFit property for YouTube thumbnails was changed from cover to contain.

This causes issues when switching video formats (e.g., 9:16). If we don’t force objectFit: 'cover', the thumbnail looks very strange and inconsistent.

aab8428#diff-3e3247c7a244f8fed1fdf1518862a0c7018f151a1b7d8598609e4c1c3a88fb10L168-R186

ℹ️ Additional context

No response

[harlan-zw]

Good questions. I think that, as part of testing, I never considered a vertical alignment like this.

What do you reckon would be the solution here 🤔 maybe aspect ratio becomes a prop and we can determine the fit based on it