Comments on: Viddler vs Vimeo vs Youtube

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:24:31 +0000

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!

By: Per, BKWine

Per, BKWine — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:06:32 +0000

@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.

By: Clinton Stark

Clinton Stark — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:51 +0000

@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.

By: Per, BKWine

Per, BKWine — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:52:50 +0000

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?

By: Clint

Clint — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:52:14 +0000

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

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:43:56 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:49:32 +0000

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!

By: Hector

Hector — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:01:20 +0000

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.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:16:52 +0000

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.

By: Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:09:34 +0000

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.

By: genewitch

genewitch — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:06:20 +0000

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.

By: bob

bob — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:32:54 +0000

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.

By: Edwin

Edwin — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:43:05 +0000

A custom brightcove install is excellent. Also, check out tubemogul.