By Carlos Miller
In the less than two years I’ve been making online videos, I never became a huge fan of Youtube because even though it attracts the most viewers, it tends to greatly degrade the quality of my videos once they are uploaded. And it was only until recently that they limited videos to 200 MB.
So I started using Vimeo and Viddler interchangeably in the hopes I would find the perfect video host. At first, I favored Vimeo because I thought the color tone was better.
But I recently learned that Vimeo has some very annoying issues with the audio being out of sync with the video. So now I am using Viddler.
But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.
For example, check out the video from the Calle Ocho festival. You will notice instances when you hear the audio before the actual image on the screen. This is most noticeable when it cuts from one musical act to another. You start hearing the music before seeing the band. It’s very annoying for me.
Now here is the Viddler version. The audio and video are completely in sync but the image quality seems to be more degraded here than in the Vimeo version, which has bolder colors and clearer faces.
I uploaded the same video several times on both sites after having saved it in several different formats and sizes, including the ones recommended, but I still ended up with these same issues.
The only difference in these videos is that I mistakenly wrote “2008″ in the intro caption on the Vimeo version, which I later corrected to “2009″ before I uploaded the same video to Viddler.
These sites each allow up to 500 MB, which is better than Youtube’s 200 MB, which I recently learned has been upgraded to 1 GB.
So I uploaded the same video with the same format as the above videos onto Youtube.
So what do you guys think? Viddler? Vimeo? Or Youtube?
Popularity: 3% [?]
14 responses so far ↓
1 Edwin // Mar 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Does it have to be one of those three? How about other options?
SmugMug
blip.tv
Adobe also lists partners for HD video streaming. This may or may not help you out.
Abobe link 1
Abobe link 1
2 Edwin // Mar 22, 2009 at 1:43 AM
A custom brightcove install is excellent. Also, check out tubemogul.
3 bob // Mar 22, 2009 at 7:32 AM
In our internal tests that took place in Summer 2008 we found Viddler to have the best overall sound and video quality. Vimeo frustrated us. Yahoo had inferior quality which we understand has been upgraded since but we haven’t tried it. Our tests included one video file that we created and then uploaded in different sizes and different audio configurations. We settled on Viddler due to large movies, sound quality and ease of uploading. They do have a kind of unusual way of determining how you want your video to be distributed/viewed if you don’t make it public. All of them are easy to embed. We couldn’t use YouTube also because of the time limitation of 10 minutes. For us it’s Viddler. Quality starts with the creator. If you don’t do a good job then don’t expect the services to help out and improve things. Once you make a service you stick with it and learn how to work better with them. And, no, our group has no affiliation or financial interests in any of these services. We’re independent.
4 genewitch // Mar 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM
carlos, if you have a youtube video you want to have displayed in HQ format (if the source was HQ, that is)
add &fmt=18
to the end of the URL. This works on the youtube site, not sure how you hotlink the HQ/HD ones to other sites. but it is possible to do it.
5 Carlos Miller // Mar 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Edwin,
It doesn’t have to be these three but these are the only ones I’m familiar with. Thanks for the suggestions. Will check them out.
Bob,
Is there a link to this report?
Thanks for the advice, Genewitch.
6 bob // Mar 22, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I wish we had done a report. But, it was all done internally. We tested upload time, file size, movie length, audio quality, and the effects of compression.
7 Hector // Mar 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Funny enough, the answer is….
FACEBOOK.
I tried all of those (youtube is definitely the worst!), and from the few videos I’ve uploaded so far, FACEbook seems to keep the highest quality, closest color representation, and no issues with audio sync.
unfortuantely thats a bad choice for exposure but, quality wise it’s the answer.
8 Tim // Mar 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM
I can’t see the video& sound out of sync of any of them, is it just me?
I’d say Vimeo based on the 3 choices – but I’d love to know what all the other options are, just for my own personal interest!
9 Thomas // Apr 16, 2009 at 3:43 AM
Today’s 4/16/09, so for me, Youtube’s out of the question. So, I’ll go with Viddler when I think about registering to upload my videos there.
10 Clint // Apr 16, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Good report.
I’m also leaning towards Vimeo. Although I don’t like their nickel & dime pricing model where you need to buy credits for HD embeds. Especially when YouTube offers it free (but with a horrible interface).
I haven’t experienced audio sync issues (at least not that I notice) with Vimeo although I’ve read about it. Some people suggest using 44.1 for audio instead of 48. I prefer not to modify my encodes just to address a service issue.
Anyways, for those interested you can see our tests here, and write-up on results including embeds from Vimeo, YouTube, Viddler, Smugmug, Facebook, etc… all on one monster page no less.
http://www.starksilvercreek.com/2009/04/vimeo-youtube-facebook-viddler-smugmug-review-comparison-reigns-supreme-online-hd-video-hosting.html
11 Per, BKWine // Jun 10, 2009 at 7:52 AM
I think the original post misses the point entirely. What is important with online video is not to achieve the best quality but rather to get your message out.
To a large extent the answer to the question depends on if you will rely primarily on showing the videos on YOUR OWN pages (your own blog etc) or if you also want to attract visitors/viewers from other sources.
If you are only interested in showing the videos on your own pages then, yes, Vimeo or Viddler (or someone else) might be good since it might (perhaps) give better quality.
If you are more interested in having your videos viewed by as many people as possible, then YouTube wins hands down.
When I simultaneously put an identical video up on Vm, Vd, DM, MCafe etc, and YouTube then YT accounts for 90%+ of all views. All the others count for less than 10%.
So, do you want people to watch your videos or do you primarily want gloss and brilliance?
12 Clinton Stark // Jun 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM
@Per, BKWine: why does it have to be mutually exclusive (quality vs. reach)? You can have your cake and eat it too.
We distribute to most of the major online video sites including YouTube and Vimeo. But for embedding typically use Vimeo. But we still get benefit of YouTube’s massive audience.
Also, the new Tubemogul allows you to upload once, then syndicate to all major video sites, then measure results. And yes YouTube is the easy winner when it comes to reach.
13 Per, BKWine // Jun 10, 2009 at 5:06 PM
@Clinton. Well, yes, exactly. I agree that that’s definitely the best strategy.
Only “but” is that you might want to try and concentrate your traffic to one platform. Perhaps. Which might mean that you’d anyway want to direct traffic (from your embeds) to YT, in spite of inferior quality.
But I’m not sure if that’s true or not. It might be something that crystallizes with time.
So, in essence I definitely agree with you.
14 Dan // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:24 PM
I like Tubemogul.com, I use it to load vids to 10 sites at once, so nice. I think Vimeo is the nicest to watch, but I’m all about spreading my vids as much as possible. I guess if I was going to embed on my site I’d use the vimeo version.
Yeah, I’m glad these sites are putting pressure on youtube to step up their game!
Leave a Comment