Originally (2006) I produced videos 320x240 @15fps. I was more conscious 4 years ago about file size. I imagined Blip blowing up with files being anything larger. :) Since then I've settled in on 480x272 as my standard output rez (16:9). If I have 4:3 video I'll normally output to 480x360.
I use vpip on my wordpress site to add the videos. Over the years, I've since gone back, left the original video @ 320x240, but I have it displayed on the site at 480x360. It looks no worse than some of the stuff I see on YT. While I have my pants down telling all my dirty secrets, I've shoot everything over the past couple years in HD. I don't output in HD, just the original content is in HD. That way, I have more options down the road. HD on the web? Meh. My old iMac 1.8ghz which has just enough juice to edit/produce my vlogs, has heart palpitations when trying to download & view HD videos from the web. Mike http://vlog.mikemoon.net --- In [email protected], "elbowsofdeath" <st...@...> wrote: > > > > 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.jones@> 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. > > >
