YouTube now supports high definition video

[Christopher Lefchik]

Details here: YouTube Experiments with High-Quality Video - PC World

[Andy Wilkinson]

Well I think they missed the boat on this big time. Anyone with decent 720p footage is now well used to posting it on Vimeo etc. and that has the added advantage that you don't have to wade through all the low resolution "dross" that YouTube seems to attract to find it on those other sites.

It will be very interesting to see if this takes off - with the might of Google behind it it could just happen (eventually). Will it kill Vimeo, I doubt it (at least not yet).

[Gints Klimanis]

The YouTube "high definition" version looks slightly worse in that I have to play both several times to search for artifacts. It's not like one looks like NatGeo HD and the other doesn't. We could assume that "Dancing Matt" (grand concept and delivery. Incredible!) uploaded the same files to both YouTube and Vimeo. Vimeo looks slightly better with softer/fewer compression artifacts and better color. I've put this links in this post for your convenience:

YouTube Experiments with High-Quality Video - PC World
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) on Vimeo

Vimeo could offer even higher quality downloads 10-35 MBps with 720p30, 720p60, 1080p30 and 1080i60, and they could just grade and charge their user accounts by monthly download bandwidth. I just noticed the Download Original file all the way at the bottom of the page. That is great for distribution. Vimeo recommends that the files be H.264-compressed to 3 MBits/second and 720P - not enough for a great full screen HD experience. If you upload a 7MBps video, does Vimeo recompress to 3MBbps? I can't tell.

I'd be willing to continue paying the Vimeo Plus subscription rate of $60/year to offer something significantly better than YouTube.

[Jack Zhang]

Download original file only works for people registered on Vimeo. People not logged in can't download it.

[Gary Nattrass]

None of this gets over the rights issues:

If you upload a file to you tube you give away all your rights!

They can sell it charge people to download it and make programmes about the clips and you get nothing.

Their days are numbered as decent streaming becomes more available why would you give away all your copyright when you could do it yourself?

See out IPTV site (still in test mode) for a hint of the future: iNorthEast.tv

[Dan Chung]

Gary,

The answer as far as Youtube is concerned is search and linking, two things streamed IPTV does extremely badlly. The point about Youtube and to lesser extent Vimeo is that it gives you a huge potential audience. How you grow some virally can be more important than the delivery technology.

I take your points about copyright however.

Dan

[Tyler Franco]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

If you upload a file to you tube you give away all your rights!

Really? I'm sure most people do not understand that! Do you know whether if you remove your video from there site they lose that copyright again? Also, you are just giving them permission to use the videos, correct? Not completely transferring over ownership?

[Randy Panado]

Isn't it the same with Vimeo? Or not giving away your rights but they have full rights to it as well?

I prefer Vimeo over youtube's interface myself but it's hard to match the sheer amount of videos (quality and non quality) that youtube has.

[Mark Cinense]

all the more reason to go HD when selecting a camera...

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Gints Klimanis

Vimeo recommends that the files be H.264-compressed to 3 MBits/second and 720P - not enough for a great full screen HD experience. If you upload a 7MBps video, does Vimeo recompress to 3MBbps? I can't tell.

I've downloaded a number of my own Vimeo clips by grabbing them with Orbit. The files are indeed smaller, and the bitrate varies from 1.3 to 3 MBps. All of the files I uploaded were 5 MBps H.264.

You can find three screen grabs of a video here:
Index of /Images/Tests/Vimeo

These are PNG screen grabs using VLC Media Player to play the file. "ORIG" is from the 5 MBps H.264 file I uploaded to Vimeo. "Vimeo FLV" is a grab from the FLV file I leeched using Orbit. Bol1 is a title, and notice the blockiness in the gradient. Bol2 shows excessive noise on the baby's face and other lower tone areas. Yes, the subject is not in focus as he is too close to the camera. Bol3 shows lots of noise on the baby's face and brown outfit. Notice how the background wall texture is not noisy. This scene involves a baby sliding down the stairs, so he's in motion. Also, notice the flatter colors in the FLV.

[Christopher Lefchik]

Originally Posted by Tyler Franco

Really? I'm sure most people do not understand that! Do you know whether if you remove your video from there site they lose that copyright again? Also, you are just giving them permission to use the videos, correct? Not completely transferring over ownership?

Section 6.C of the YouTube Terms of Use:

Originally Posted by YouTube Terms of Use

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

[Tyler Franco]

I went and read Vimeo's as well. Which is almost word for word the same. So unless you are hosting your own video, it doesn't look avoidable.

[Chris Medico]

Not all agreements are like that.. Here is one from Blip.tv which is the service I use right now. They give you a good bit of control over your distribution choices.

I know this TOS might look the same but look at the one word here I found missing in most other services TOS - REVOCABLE. This is important.

The full text can be found here - blip.tv terms of service

From Blip:

When you upload or post content to Blip.tv, that content becomes public content and will be searchable by and available to anyone who visits the Blip.tv site. Blip.tv does not claim ownership of the materials you post, upload, input or submit to the Blip.tv site. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your content to Blip.tv, you are granting Blip.tv, its affiliated companies and partners, a worldwide, revocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the purposes of displaying that content on Blip.tv and on other Web sites, devices and/or platforms. Content that you upload to Blip.tv will generally be available to the public in RSS feeds designed to allow for the automatic syndication of content throughout the Web — Blip.tv is an open platform and designed for the free exchange of content and ideas.

[Dylan Couper]

We have several great in depth threads about what the Youtube TOS actually means to the average user. Let's keep this thread on track about Youtube HD please.

[Craig Seeman]

It'll be interesting to see where YouTube goes with HD. I thought I'd make some comparisons with Vimeo though.

Vimeo:
Vimeo allows only 1 HD upload per week with 500MB cap unless one pays $60 for 2GB cap per week and no number of HD uploads limit.
Vimeo HD is 720p24 so if source is 720p30 or p60, I've seen frame rate conversion issues (not sure if PAL folks uploading p25 see with their source).
Vimeo downloads are exactly what I upload so I'm not sure what others are saying here. The Flash playback is certainly compressed but my H264 sources downloads are my original file.
Although Vimeo has a total file size cap they have no duration limit.
Vimeo 720p24 files can play at the full 1280x720 size (don't forget to turn OFF scaling when going to full screen).
I believe Vimeo's HD data rate is somewhere between 1500-1800kbps.

YouTube:
YouTube has a 10 minute duration limit.
YouTube has a 1GB file size cap but no weekly caps on files or cumulative size.
The blog doesn't make some things clear so I wonder if people can test:
YouTube HD would only be really useful if it allowed 1280x720 playback.
Would YouTube HD encodes playback at full NTSC (29.97) and PAL (25fps) frame rates?
What would YouTube's HD data rate be?
Would YouTube optionally allow the uploader give the viewer the ability to download the source as Vimeo does?
YouTube analytics blows the doors off of Vimeo if you need to analyze viral distribution.

Some more comments:
I think YouTube could easily put Vimeo out of business depending on where YouTube goes with HD (that's a BIG DEPENDS though). Vimeo would be left with the advantage of no duration limit though. Vimeo went to a annual fee model because the advertising was not supporting them

YouTube is also GoogleVideo which is an odd relationship. GoogleVideo has no duration limit has a download feature (but those are compressed) and is now implementing YouTube's analytics.

Exposureroom seems to have none of the limits Vimeo has. There's no file size limit. Their service is free. I'm not sure what their business model is given I don't see much advertising.