Printable View
as i've been doing site reviews, i see a lot of different video sizes. some sites biggest videos are 320x240 and some are 640x480 and some fall in between. that's a very big difference!
i was wondering what sizes of videos you use on your sites - and also what size you prefer to see as a surfer?
I'm sure surfers would rather have full screen over 320x240 (especially those not on 800x600 resolution). Anyone ever do any polls to determine what percent keep it at the default size and who expands to full screen? Those who don't expand it, is it because they just don't know how to?
To someone who is going to go full screen, it doesn't really matter if the original was 320x240 or 640x480. What it comes down to is video quality when expanded. I've seen larger sizes that look worse at full screen than smaller sizes. It depends on how they were encoded.
it depends on the quality...
which leads me to something i speculate about rather frequently. i was promoting this site and it retained spectacularly. i asked for a pass, and the videos on full screen were like watching tv they were so clear. obviously higher quality is better... so i asked some webmasters why they didn't use bigger and better video.
almost every one told me it would cost too much (not one had actually dont the math to find out how much), and some said their members didn't want to wait that long for the videos to load.
funny thing - you see mainstream sites with mega content like allamericanguys.com and they have big beautiful videos, yet they don't seem to be going broke. and i see some sites offering huge videos along side smaller options for those who don't want to wait to download. those sites seem to retain well - and the webmasters don't seem to be going broke.
wouldn't it make sense to at least enlarge your videos to 480 instead of 320? guys on a larger resolution must see those 320x240's like postage stamps - and would you be as likely to rebill with a video that seemed small to you?
I use 320x240 and 640x480
but more than the resolution the most important is the kbps
you can have very good quality video to 320x240 to 800kbps
and very bad video to 640x480 to 64kbps
very true, but i can't even begin to comprehend people who give their paying members jerky or blurry videos and expect to make money. i have reviewed sites where the video the members pay to see is lower quality than the average mgp galleries.
i make my large videos 1mb or better, my mediums are 320x240 and are 512k and my smallest are 112, but they look pretty good considering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webnet
We somewhat recently made the switch to 640x480 I was able to encode this at 1mbps and keep the file size the same as the 320x240 they do seem however to take a bit longer to download. ( I know that makes no sense) and the people who love them love them, and the dial up members don't like them so much. But overall who ever said it was right. Quality retains and we try to do our best to give the most quality to everyone involved without getting to heavy for the users with less machine.
give your dialup surfers a second video size - then everyone is happy :)
You know, im new to all this video stuff but slowly learning and im edging towards doing what Patti just suggested, several bandwidth / file size options that way, depending on what speed the surfer is browsing the web on, they will be able to choose a movie thats right for them.
Regards,
Lee