Google Doubles Size of Youtube Videos

[braincell]

The maximum size is now 2 gigs for youtube videos. There is still a 10 minute limit on the length though. Google recently has added HD as an option for videos.

Gmail attachments can now be 25MB; an increase of 5MB over the previous 20MB limit.

[siriusbliss]

The maximum size is now 2 gigs for youtube videos. There is still a 10 minute limit on the length though. Google recently has added HD as an option for videos.

Gmail attachments can now be 25MB; an increase of 5MB over the previous 20MB limit.

Yeah, but Vimeo is way superior.

Greg

[valis]

Except that Vimeo now has a clause 'No Commercial use', with an exception for "Independent production companies, authors, musicians, non profits, churches, artists, and actors may show or promote the work they have created, anyone else cannot."

This seems fair at first glance since it still allows the musical content we're likely to be thinking about here. But there are a large number of videos related to software & gear that have been taken down as a result, effectively pushing a decent chunk of the audience back to youtube. So it is nice that Youtube has HD imo, as it keeps these videos watchable.

[dawman]

Double the size of YourTube.

viagra_5.gif

[netguyjoel]

No need here...I walk through life, torqued up like a teenager...

[dawman]

Yeah this stuff is scary no doubt.
I did it one time while I was being festive, and you can get a woody bumping into the sink while doing the dishes.

But I am glad YouTube is twice the size.
JBowen got 86'd from Vimeo for showing Solaris........

I got 86'd from Cheetah's here in Las Vegas years ago, but that's because the strippers kept bothering me and asking for tips, so when the lead Hen started twisting around on my lap and asked me for a tip....I told her Sea Bisquit in the 7th race.......Well that wentover like a Reggae Band at a Klan Rally...

[netguyjoel]

Don't forget, if it lasts more than 4 hours...contact your Doctor...
...yeah, right...4:00 am w/ some Peruvian Marching Powder and a few local Pros...I don't think so!!

didn't know that 'bout JBowen's Solaris vids.

Sea Biscuit in the 7th....

That went over like Jerry Falwell at a Gay Pride Parade....

[dawman]

ANkyu........................................Please stay seated.

[netguyjoel]

Try the Veal...I'll be here all week....

[siriusbliss]

Except that Vimeo now has a clause 'No Commercial use', with an exception for "Independent production companies, authors, musicians, non profits, churches, artists, and actors may show or promote the work they have created, anyone else cannot."

This seems fair at first glance since it still allows the musical content we're likely to be thinking about here. But there are a large number of videos related to software & gear that have been taken down as a result, effectively pushing a decent chunk of the audience back to youtube. So it is nice that Youtube has HD imo, as it keeps these videos watchable.

Vimeo hasn't dumped this one yet...
http://www.vimeo.com/2951069

[valis]

Isn't this the model that most of the larger web companies are pushing (including google)? Blogging "Link Juice" combined with Adwords, Yahoo Publishing & "New Media Marketing" in general have been buzzworded to death. so I can understand Vimoe's motivations as a business. Letting your content be commercials hosted directly for free has certain implications on potential bottom line later one. It's a fair bet that Youtube is aware of this as well, it gets discussed in the online sphere of things a lot. They just have deeper corporate pockets to 'develop their model' of business I think.

[netguyjoel]

I wonder how long it will take them (Youtube) to make commercial entities, start paying for it...

And what kind of pricing model??

[braincell]

Why is vimeo better? It says you get only 500 megabytes per week. That is way too little for what I'm doing. I couldn't even upload one video.

[valis]

As an end user Vimeo has had better quality from the point it emerged, and so its content was always higher quality. It would generally buffer faster, and have consistantly higher quality (and better transcoding) especially for audio. It is also somewhat less intrusive as Youtube has been adding a lot of 'sidebar' 'comment' etc type features that many people use (so that when content is embedded elsewhere it has lots of links to draw you back into youtoogle).

For the uploader/content creator Vimeo seems to be clamping down so much they may not be the place of choice anymore. It's got to be hard to be second fiddle to a video portal giant like Youtube though (with their seemingly endless deep pockets.) A lot can change in 6 months in the online market...

[braincell]

I'm having bad results for audio in both youtube and vimeo particularly with my piano sound. It's making a lot of ugly overtones. I'm trying one more method of encoding the audio in the video before I give up.

[dawman]

MP4 works good.

[valis]

What video & audio format are you using? MP4 with AAC is the 'preferred' format for youtube these days, and audio should be 128k stereo AAC for 'standard quality' and 232k stereo AAC for 'HD'.

Unfortunately for these uses it may require you to actually master your material as 'hot', as their audio encoder is very aggressive and will not only alias the heck out of things (which is what you're hearing) but will treat 'lower level' blocks to much higher lossy compression ratios. Overcompressing 'tricks' their encoder into thinking 'everything is important' and retaining more audio bandwidth as a result. Real Encoder & Winmedia both suffer from this as well in my experience when doing aggressive encoding to low bitrates.

(edit: jimmy you're faster, but I err on the side of verbosity I guess )

[braincell]

Thanks a lot. I suspected I needed more compression. MP4 is not an option for me right now unless you have a free way to encode it. I am trying apple lossless audio at the moment. It is uploading. I guess I should go back and compress it more. This has been a long tedious learning experience!

[valis]

Part of the problem is that it goes through a fast transcoding process on youtube's end. They have their system optimized more for efficiency than quality, and when you see the stats from the amount of material they process (and serve up) it quickly becomes obvious why. Something like 70% of the content processed is rarely seen, if at all (ie, removed quickly & 'updated' by the end user, or just never watched by viewers.)

And I'm guessing you understood that I meant 'hot' in terms of dynamic compression not data compression from the context, but I should have clarified that.

[braincell]

Yes, I understood. I'm compressing now but have a noise issue in the quiet part.