Actually if you use older camera technology and go above 320x240 then you are at risk of running into interlacing issues. This isnt a problem if your editing & encoding software can deinterlace and you understand the issue, but certainly when vloggers first started experimenting with 640x480 I saw no end of stuff that looked worse than 320x240 because they hadnt deinterlaced so there were bad comb artefacts when camera or people moved.
The vast majority of vlogs that I watch dont really lose anything by being 320x240. There are certain types of content that I love watching at higher resolutions, but even with a pretty fast broadband connection I dont like to wait long - many of the popular video hosts are not delivering content to me at anything like the speed that my broadband can handle. I do like video hosts that enable the viewer to switch between HD and non-HD versions of the video very easily. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], David Jones <david.jo...@...> wrote: > Seriously 640x480 is so trivially easy on almost any bit of hardware, > it is no harder than 320x240. 320x240 is just not worth it unless you > are producing a specific podcast or similar where bandwidth is > critical. I produce a 480x272 podcast version of my show for just such > reasons, but I'm not silly enough to film at that resolution or only > make my product available only at that resolution. > > > I'm not necessarily talking about HD here, as there is still has quite > a few technical issues for the average users as has been discussed on > here many times. But lets be honest, 5 or even 10 year old gear is > easily capable of 640x480, as is any $50 second hand DV camcorder of > any age. Heck, I can remember easily editing a 2 hour 720x576 DVD > movie on an 800MHz Pentium 3 with 768MB of memory and crappy > integrated Intel graphics card. > Dave. >
