Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Top Video Sharing Sites Reviewed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the who-is-doing-it-right dept.

146

prostoalex writes "Digital Video Guru is running a comparison of 10 digital video sharing sites - EyeSpot Beta, Google Video Beta, Grouper Beta, Jumpcut Beta, OurMedia, Revver Beta, VideoEgg, Vimeo, vSocial and YouTube. Currently, based on traffic, YouTube is the leader of the pack (more heavily visited MSN Video does not support user-uploaded videos), but Digital Video Guru blog awards Vimeo for fastest uploads, JumpCut for editing, and YouTube for community features."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DMCA anyone? (5, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093405)

MPAA to sue 10 recently-reviewed sites citing DMCA violations in 3, 2, 1. . .

You clearly do not understand the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093409)

Carriers are absolved of any responsibility under the DMCA so long as they comply with any sworn requests to take down infringing content.

The MPAA, et. al. are very aware of these websites and send down takedown notices for copyrighted material on a regular basis.

Re:You clearly do not understand the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093428)

You clearly have no sense of humor, and haven't seen MPAA member lawyers cite the DMCA to shut down all kinds of sites even when it is a misapplication of the DMCA.

Dumbass.

Re:You clearly do not understand the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093445)

Sorry, labeling something totally inaccurate as humor does not turn it into humor.

The MPAA does not use the DMCA to shut down a website unless they are sure it is infringing, otherwise they are guilty of perjury. There is a difference between sending a threatening letter alluding to violations and an actual takedown notice.

Thanks for playing! Better luck next time.

And thank you for playing! (3, Insightful)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093615)

Rereading everything:
You seem to have some definition of the word "use" that is different from everyone elses, or maybe just how the clauses work together. Sending a threatening letter alluding to violations is using the DMCA. If that is enough to result in the site being shut down because the site owner can't afford a legal battle with the MPAA, then that is using the DMCA to shut down a site.

Also, I support the notion that it is funny (though not exaggerated sufficiently to work well) and will post my variation in another subthread.

What I had before:
Yeah, it'd be nice if every act of perjury got prosecuted, but they aren't and to the best of my knowledge the MPAA and RIAA are well aware of that fact and use it to their advantage.

Re:DMCA anyone? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093621)

You hear that Pirates! Thanks to Digital Video Guru, the MPAA knows all your hiding places and are coming after j00!

Good pick. (4, Insightful)

O'Laochdha (962474) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093425)

The thing I like about YouTube is that they have their videos as standard shockwave files...I can't get most other sites to run on my browser/OS.

Re:Good pick. (1)

takeya (825259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093467)

Isn't Google just standard flash? It works in my browser, and most shockwave applets don't even work.

Re:Good pick. (1)

The Hobo (783784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093542)

Now it's up to Macromedia to add a volume slider and it would be perfect, right now I have to change my computer's volume levels to control it, very annoying (google's player has a volume slider)

If there's a volume control I'm missing on YouTube, please, tell me where it is... (mute isn't good enough)

Re:Good pick. (2, Informative)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094365)

It's up to the developers to decide to put a volume slider in. Flash has had that abilitiy since version 1.0.

Re:Good pick. (1)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093700)

IMHO, that is a drawback. I have had more trouble with the Flash based players than sites that simply embed video links in the code.

What OS are you having problems with? OSX, Linux, and Windows XP all work for me.

Re:Good pick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093875)

Actually I don't think YouTube uses Shockwave, it uses Flash. Shockwave is only available for Windows and OS X.

Re:Good pick. (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094031)

Ah. no wonder I can't view YouTube on some of my systems.

Re:Good pick. (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094202)

If only Macromedia^WAdobe would fix the $%^&* sound lag.

Re:Good pick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15094700)

If only Linux Developers would fix the $%^&* sound drivers.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Good pick. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094698)

The thing I like about YouTube is that they have their videos as standard shockwave files...I can't get most other sites to run on my browser/OS.

Gaaaaaaahhhh.

1. I HATE Flash, and don't have it install. I'm not interested in a load of bloated software, with a history of open security holes for months before they get fixed.

2. Installing Flash is exceptionally difficult on any platform other than Win/Mac-PPC/Linux-x86. On the BSDs, you have to load-up on hundreds of MBs of Linux libraries to run the Linux version.

3. You've got a seriously limited selection of browsers. Some browsers have added Mozilla compatibility because of it, but not many.

4. With standard embedded video files, you can always just use "View Info" (in Moz/Firefox) or "View Source" (in any browser) to get the URL to download, and can play that locally with whatever video player you like.

5. With standard embedded video files, there are numerous, open source, browser plug-ins. They all allow easy downloading of the videos, playback with whatever program you use, etc.

Nothing pisses me off more than a site which uses crappy SWF for their videos. I just go elsewhere.

Lame (0, Offtopic)

Deagol (323173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093426)

From YouTube:

"Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Macromedia's Flash Player, click here to get the latest flash player."

How lame is that? I'll be damned if I'm istalling flash. Why the hell do so many sites use that piece of shit?

Re:Lame (3, Insightful)

casuist99 (263701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093463)

I agree - it would be much nicer to not have to install any video playing software in order to watch videos online... why *can't* they play in my text-based browser, afterall?

Seriously, though it's superior to AOL video or video from CNN that require you to have WMV support in your browser - and despite Flip4mac, that's still not an easy feat in OSX. I'm a huge supporter of platform-independent video, and flash player is at least a decent alternative towards that end.

Re:Lame (2, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093497)

Seeing as how I run FreeBSD amd64, I'd bitch if they didn't have a format that wasn't supported by 64-bit clean open source codecs. I don't run 32-bit or linux binary compatability, which rules out quite a bit for me. No Sun Java (which is stupid -- they support PPC, UltraSparc, and Win64), no OpenOffice, no Flash (which I refused to install when I ran 32-bit anyway), and no win32 codecs for mplayer. :) At least I can play the AVI's from Google's video site.

Buy why so many sites don't default to mpeg or mpeg2 is totally beyond me. Standards, people -- standards! Open formats, like Theora, would be even better.

Re:Lame (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093629)

No Sun Java (which is stupid -- they support PPC, UltraSparc, and Win64)

Does Java even run on 32 bit FreeBSD? Are you running the Linux version? Because Sun Java works fine on AMD64 Linux. I was running it on Debian a while back. Brings a nice speedup too. It was 300% faster running this simple puzzle solving program I made than the 32 bit JVM (and 32 bit OS) on the same machine.

And you wonder... (1)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093841)

"Seeing as how I run FreeBSD amd64, I'd bitch if they didn't have a format that wasn't supported by 64-bit clean open source codecs."

And you wonder why you're sitting in your underwear posting on Slashdot on a Saturday night? :P

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093594)

why *can't* they play in my text-based browser, afterall?

I know! They need an aalib [sourceforge.net] plugin for lynx. Think about those of us who haven't upgraded from our 286s yet!^M
Seriously,
Wait, you were joking?^M

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093743)

Wasn't one of videolan.org's goal was to offer a cross-platform streaming codec (as an alternative to wmv, rm, and mov)? They offer VLS to serve mpeg 2 & 4 streams, but no one seems to be using it.

Re:Lame (2, Interesting)

niteice (793961) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093464)

Would you prefer 1 Flash plugin or 4 seperate video plugins?

Re:Lame (2, Interesting)

Zaplocked (925208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093465)

Much better than making you choose between wmv/quicktime/realplayer imo - I'm able to view these in our linux lab when I'm taking a break from whatever cs stuff I might be working on.

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093747)

What about just ogg theora? :)

Re:Lame (1)

SkuzBuket (820246) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093518)

I take it you bought Strong Bad Emails on DVD then? -- Flash or not, /.er is complete without their Strong Bad.

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093599)

How lame is that? I'll be damned if I'm istalling flash. Why the hell do so many sites use that piece of shit?

Because something like 98% of all web users have it.

Re:Lame (1)

crazygamer (952019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093737)

98% is the correct number - Flash player is the most installed plugin out there, so if you're deciding what to use to play videos, this seems like a clear choice. Here's a link to Macromedia's stat page:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/f lashplayer/ [macromedia.com] .

Re:Lame (1)

bwave (871010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093680)

What causes this?? (re: flash not installed) You tube doesn't work on my pc on either IE6, IE7 or Firefox. Works great in Opera. I've reinstalled flash and shockwave, re-registered dll's for all relevant files, etc. Still can't get it to work.

Missing (5, Funny)

d2_m_viant (811261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093430)

ThePirateBay [thepiratebay.org] is noticeably absent from that list.

Re:Missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093496)

What does "noticably" add to your statement?

Re:Missing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093555)

You are a noticably anal person, aren't you?

Re:Missing (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093630)

Oh great, now you've just tolled the MPAA the real hiding plaice of oal the Pi-rats!

Re:Missing (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094360)

The MPAA is well aware of The Pirate Bay, and regularly sends them threatening letters. TPB routinely posts them on their site and mocks them for (amongst other things) trying to wield US civil law at them (when they're based in Sweden), etc.

Thank you Captain Oblivious (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094670)

My statement was played for humor and was by no means intended to indicate the actual capacity of the MPAA.

No Browser Plug-in (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093669)

I'm sure if there were plug-in support for downloading videos via bittorrent and then displaying them in-browser, it would have been considered along with the other sites...

Re:No Browser Plug-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093730)

Well firefox is gonna have a bittorrent plugin or something like that right?, maybe what you say ain't so far from now :)

Piratebay h=doesn't host video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093944)

The piratebay does not share video so how could it be included?

Please don't say things like 'bitorrent tracking sites host movies/share movies/etc', it's a wrong statement, but it is exactly the kind of disinformation that the RIAA/MPAA want the general public to hear.
A 200kb tracker file IS NOT a video.


Sad that you read /. and are being brainwashed into believing the BS.

Google video is not available in many countries (4, Interesting)

Samir Gupta (623651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093434)

Most of Europe and China, if you try to access Google Video, you are told it's not available in your country yet. Why they have this restriction by unilaterally banning ALL videos from users of said countries is beyond me.

Is it legal (due to censorship policies)? Than why do the other sites not have this?

This is a major detractor of Google Video's usability in my opinion.

Re:Google video is not available in many countries (1)

P2PDaemon (723609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093531)

Since Google puts the videos up for not only download, but purchase as well, there may be legalities holding them back from letting the world see it just yet.

Re:Google video is not available in many countries (1)

sql_noob (855995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093848)

Those are paid contents. If google isn't ready to sell digital video in that region or the copyright holder don't want digital distribution in that region, it couldn't. btw, China censorship are forced on all search engine operate there. If they don't like the site, they will just block it. At least google would stated that it is filtered, others doesn't. They just doesn't have anyone to explicate the matter properly.

Re:Google video is not available in many countries (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094113)

Up until a few months ago I regularly got the "Google video is not available in your country" error for free material.

Comparison of 40 video sites. Google is weak (1)

g4e (964775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094049)

Google Video has a lots weeknesses. The platform seems to be very non-reactive and arbitrary. You have no clue wether, when and where your uploaded video is presented. I reckon they've too many restrictions making this platform dull. They only assets they have is their reach.

For more see the brand new comparison of 40 online video sharing communities:

http://www.mustseeblog.com/?p=68 [mustseeblog.com]

My disappointment came almost immediately (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093447)

When Google announced Google Video, I naturally checked it out. I was impressed with a wide array of titles. But what dissappinted me most was the inability to adjust the brightness/contrast of the videos. Some titles are just too dark!

At first I thought it was my version of flash. But even after getting the latest, those videos are still too dark. To make matters worse, there does not seem to be an effort to sort this issue out. We need some common video controls on some these videos for sure.

On Kubuntu' Konqueror browser, the controls that at least appear on Windows2k with Firefox 1.5 do not appear at all!

check calibration+gamma settings (3, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093545)

At first I thought it was my version of flash. But even after getting the latest, those videos are still too dark. To make matters worse, there does not seem to be an effort to sort this issue out. We need some common video controls on some these videos for sure.

If you're using Windows, you probably don't have the correct color profile selected for your display, or you're using the wrong gamma setting. Or you're using Linux, and don't have the gamma set properly (X does not default to a reasonable gamma- it defaults to 2.4 or something, when Windows is 2.2.) Note that you can't use "2.2" as a parameter- you have to give it something like "1.2" or similar. Google "linux gamma" etc.

Macs also sometimes default to goofy profiles, so check under "Color" in the Displays control panel.

I've never had a problem with video brightness on google video, but I am using a calibrated display on an OSX macbook (and Dell monitor- yes, both are calibrated.)

Re:My disappointment came almost immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093569)

Did it ever occour to you that just maybe, your monitor is not calibrated correctly? I've never had a single problem with Google Video that wasn't the fault of whoever filmed and whoever uploaded the video... But then again, my monitor is color and gamma calibrated with a hardware calibration system.

I won't expect someone to run out and get such a thing to enjoy video over the internet, but in the meantime, try to calibrate your monitor, so you will not need to screw around with brightness and contrast, ever again. You shouldn't have to adjust jack squat, unless you're the one filming, editing, or uploading. [epaperpress.com]

If by chance you're all calibrated up with a properly adjusted monitor, good for you, however, jacking around with brightness and other video controls is just not going to prove to be that useful.

Looks like crap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093477)

I can't stand the low-quality of video on most of these sites. I haven't seen any good web video in a long time...

But they forgot one (0)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093478)

I'm talking about blip.tv of course. Just put a video up on there today. Fast, easy, and up online immediately.

Don't get me wrong, I also have a youtube account. But blip.tv is quickly becoming my favorite.

Okay.. A bit off topic... (1)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093479)

But has anyone else had problems getting sound to work in Macromedia player in Ubuntu/1!? Thanks.

Re:Okay.. A bit off topic... (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093693)

Have you checked the permissions on your sound device (probably /dev/dsp or something similar)? I've never run Ubuntu, but on Slackware the permissions are set to 700 by default and I believe Flash requires both read and write access. I just set mine 777 and haven't had any problems since.

Torrent (4, Interesting)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093489)

I haven't RTFA, but is there a place that lets you post a video, and it automatically offers a Torrent of the video for download? It seems like a good way for a popular video to get around quickly without causing any one server a huge bandwidth bill.

Browser integration (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093572)

I haven't RTFA, but is there a place that lets you post a video, and it automatically offers a Torrent of the video for download? It seems like a good way for a popular video to get around quickly without causing any one server a huge bandwidth bill.

Not that I know of, and damn stright there should be.

I think most places consider it too impractical. When torrent support is baked into Mozilla, then we might see some trial attempts.

When this happens then I really think we'll see online video heat up.

question for a sat night on /. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093522)

which site is the youtube of Pr0n?

Re:question for a sat night on /. (1)

klenwell (960296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093656)

I don't know which one it is, but I predict it will be the first to make some serious scratch.

Re:question for a sat night on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093765)

Step 1: Provide free porn videos
Step 2: Pay millions of dollars per year in bandwidth bills
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!

Re:question for a sat night on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093777)

Step 3: Google bAdWords

and/or some kind of premium service that people might actually pay for.

Re:question for a sat night on /. (1)

blake6489 (949217) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093950)

booble.com

Re:question for a sat night on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15094576)

empornium.us

YouTube will eventually die. (5, Insightful)

ImaNihilist (889325) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093525)

YouTube is great because it's ad free, and everything loads fast. That's why people like it. Too bad that YouTube doesn't have a revenue model yet. The only reason they stay afloat is because some company keeps GIVING them millions of dollars. Some estimates would suggest that YouTube costs $750,000+ per month. A company can only operate at a loss for so long.

Eventually their cash flow will stop and they'll start pilling on the ads. Adwords, pop-ups, those annoying flash "timer" ads where you have to sit at a screen for 30 seconds, and ads before you play each video. Sure, they'll probably add a "premium" section to the site where you pay $9.99 a month and get to view the site ad free, but how many people are going to pay for that?

I remember when Atom Films and iFilm where big. Once the ads start poppin', the people start droppin'. And as the Pringles commercial goes, "Once you pop, you just can't stop." That's pretty much the motto for all these "free" content/service sites. It's great while it's ad free and everything loads fast, but once that ends...the party is over.

Google Video at least has some staying power. At least with Google I can save some videos in .mp4 format. Personally, I hate any site that doesn't let me save the video to my HDD. Since YouTube doesn't sell ads, I'm not sure I understand the "point" of making you go to their site everytime you want to view a video. They might as well just let you download it, and save themselves the bandwidth cost.

Re:YouTube will eventually die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093663)

Some estimates would suggest that YouTube costs $750,000+ per month.

My estimates suggest their bandwidth for TODAY will cost them that ;) Let's see how long a site that serves video can stay up! :)

Reminds me of that bit from Citizen Kane (2, Interesting)

jpardey (569633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093675)

Forgive me not being able to memorize the script... "Yes, it cost me a million dollars to run this newspaper this year, and I expect it to cost me a million dollars to run this newspaper the next year, and the year after that. At this rate, I am going to have to shut down this newspaper in... 63 years."

Re:YouTube will eventually die. (1)

Coward, Anonymous (55185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093684)

I hate any site that doesn't let me save the video to my HDD

KeepVid [keepvid.com] will let you save the video from most of the popular video sharing sites, including YouTube.

Re:YouTube will eventually die. (1)

shadow demon (917672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093808)

Yes, it will allow you to save the videos, just as you could do with some other apps, although this one definitely takes the cake for ease of use. Unfortunately, unlike with Google Video it is just the video which you were just viewing. With Google Video you can download vieos that are normal-resolution (i.e., 640*480) and high bitrate, instead of the super-compressed versions used in streaming.

You can embed YouTube videos (1)

enosys (705759) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093906)

It's possible to embed a YouTube video. The instructions [youtube.com] are on the YouTube site. YouTube isn't making you go to their site; it's just that some people choose to just link to a video instead.

Re:YouTube will eventually die. (3, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093928)

Too bad that YouTube doesn't have a revenue model yet.

They do. It's just not online. All those weekly clip shows on E and VH1 pay YouTube for content.

What about downloading (3, Insightful)

mal0rd (323126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093557)

This review isn't worth your time. It didn't even mention that http://video.google.com/ [google.com] allows you to download the videos in standard formats and youtude only allows you to play the videos with a flash player.

Basically, if you are using youtube and you come across a video you like, it's not possible to save it. That makes it almost worthless.

Re:What about downloading (4, Informative)

roye (717936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093590)

Keepvid.com [keepvid.com] might help you there. It gives you the link for easy saving. You might need that viewer for the Flashvideo files depending on your setup.

Re:What about downloading (1)

zalas (682627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094504)

FFmpeg can decode the .FLV files that YouTube uses. Thus, recent builds of VLC and mplayer should be able to play them.

Re:What about downloading (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093616)

uhh... Just use Firefox with the Grease Monkey Extension. The YouTube to Me script allows you to save all the files in a .flv format. VLC plays those files just fine.

Get a fucking clue before you post.

Re:What about downloading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15094114)

Oh, it's that easy? Just use some obscure Grease Monkey script in Firefox. I guess it's not even worth mentioning in a review then.

Re:What about downloading (2, Informative)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093642)

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php [javimoya.com] - Video Downloader, allows you to download videos from Google, My Space, Yahoo, Youtube, and many many more places. I used it to download many videos from Youtube already without much of a problem/

Recompression (4, Informative)

sakusha (441986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093661)

The one thing that annoys me terribly about these video sites is that they recompress video files available on other websites and present them in a low-bandwith Flash format. Sure Flash is crossplatform Mac/Win and runs almost everywhere, but it has the worst quality of any video codec. And recompressing video introduces significant artifacting.
I've seen dozens of recompressed videos on sites like iFilm and YouTube that are easily available in high quality on the original websites, it's like iFilm and YouTube are scraping the web looking for content to populate their sites. And of course they don't provide a link to the original site, so you have no way to know there's a better quality version available. This is dragging video down to the lowest common denominator. I run a video blog website, and I use non-downloadable streaming video precisely because I don't want some other site scraping my content and recompressing it to make it look like crap.

Re:Recompression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093796)

Um.. These sites don't scrape videos. They are uploaded by users.

I agree that the video quality isn't great but the websites are good for what they do. If I want a high quality version, I look for a URL or name of a website/group/person/etc. in the video. If you didn't put one in the video and someone uploads it and doesn't know where to go look, its your fault only.

Re:Recompression (2, Funny)

sakusha (441986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094001)

Yeah sure, the sites don't scrape videos, people do it for them. Same difference. I know at least one videographer who created some original videos, posted them on his own site, they reappeared on iFilm a few weeks later. He put his website's address in the videos, but someone cut off the beginning and ending, deliberately removing the URL. It's getting so you'll have to put up a huge watermark across your video if you want to get any credit for it. This isn't such a big deal when you're posting some pirated music videos to YouTube, but for those of us who create new original video content, it is a bit galling to see our work reposted and stripped of any credit to the authors.

Re:Recompression (2, Funny)

Animaether (411575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094044)

This isn't such a big deal when you're posting some pirated music videos to YouTube, but for those of us who create new original video content, it is a bit galling to see our work reposted and stripped of any credit to the authors.

Ahhh... hypocrisy at its finest. "It's okay to do it to others, but not to me - because my content is special"

Re:Recompression (1)

sakusha (441986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094071)

Oh bullshit. Music video is produced as a promotional product for free distribution, nobody else can take credit for it, the band that created it is self-evident. My content is designed to be viewed in context, on my web page, with an accompanying text commentary, I don't even appear in the videos. Repost it and it loses context, and it strips me of the opportunity to explain it and take credit for it. The music video example, it has no context, it is self-contained. Some works are made for video, they can survive reposting, but some cannot. That's why I control access to my videos, they're only available through my website as streaming-only videos. My content IS special, it makes no sense without context.

Re:Recompression (2, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094374)

Music video is produced as a promotional product for free distribution

To quote you, "Oh bullshit". I'd love to see you ask for, and get, one of the major labels videos in HD format, for you to "distribute", for free. But your work? Oh no, that's "special". The music video isn't a work of art, it's an ad. But your work is all deep and meaningful and requires explanation.

Utter crap. I used to work at a boutique software firm. They all had dialup modems provided by work, and by mutual agreement, people disconnected their home during the day and dialed up a dozen+ simultaneous lines to a warez bbs, to leech. But talk to them about people warezing /their/ software, and they'd be all for burning down houses and lynching.

You know the difference though? They happily admitted to hypocrisy. You on the other hand are living in a world of denial where you've pretentiously determined other people's work isn't "art", yet yours is.

Re:Recompression (0)

sakusha (441986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094481)

IHBT.

I have videotapes older than you.

Re:Recompression (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094487)

Yawn. Would you like a medal? I'll cry a river next time I'm doing post- work in a "small" million dollar Nitris suite.

Note: being called on what you write is not being trolled.

Re:Recompression (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094304)

Google Video doesn't recompress to a "low-bandwidth Flash format." You can download their videos as DivX. The bandwidth for some videos is enough to saturate my medium-bandwidth DSL connection with some videos.

It can't be that bad. A quick look at some of my files looks like 700 kbps, but some files I've seen, but didn't keep, are better than that.

They're still recompressed, sure, but if you want to distribute perfect bit-for-bit copies you should host them yourself or use bittorrent.

Re:Recompression (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15094473)

Amusingly, the one thing that looks worse than crappy recompressed video is streaming video. Seen your site on a modem?

The only reason to stream stuff is (illusion of) control, don't pretend otherwise.

Good oportunity to post the video (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093723)

"U.S. Physicists, ~1900 already, sign a petition expressing strong repudiation of the new US nuclear weapons policies, giving Bush the power to nuke without asking the congress and considers use on Iran. The UC San Diego Physicist and signatory to the petition Dr. Jeorge Hirsch warns about the consequences if U.S. deploys nukes through a 10' video." here [digg.com] .

I wonder how long will it pass until this video is on all this video sharing services :-).

Multiply! (1)

pez (54) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093768)

If you are just a regular person, like me, who takes video of your life, and you want to share it with more of the people you know (your friends and family, and the people they know too), then Multiply's social communications platform is second to none. You can share original-quality video, plus photos, blog entries and more -- all in one place.

Ups n downs of youtube (2, Interesting)

British (51765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093802)

Ups:

Lots of fun copyrighted content. full episodes of the state, aeon flux, etc
Nice & searchable
subscriptions to keywords. I just wish it would default sort by most recently added
LOTS of obscure 80s content
LOTS of obscure 80s music videos
Nice user interaction tools
Groups!

Downs:
WAY too much anime crap on there - I swear 70% is anime footage.
Way too much 'crap' footage like teenagers lip syncing to some rap song. make it friends only
Searches for keyword stuff eventually lead to more anime crap
They are cracking down on copyrighted stuff - I got an email from "DCMA" when i posted a conan o'brien clip on there. It's now gone.
The speed of downloading videos is throttled to be less than realtime. You have to instantly hit pause when the page loads, then hit play when it's done
sometimes, even if you have ahead-buffer loaded, it stops for 5-10 seconds and resumes playing. Only happens on certain videos
No more videos allowed that are 12+ minutes.

Youtube is addicting, plain and smiple.

file size / compressopmg (3, Informative)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093853)

Maybe not as big as a factor anymore, but filesize is and no compression are the 2 features I look for. Ability to edit online is fine and dandy, but I can already recompress, re-encode, and edit on my machine already. What I need is a service which will not decrease the quality after my upload to conserve bandwidth and allow a good max size, now that video quality is up to the HDTV era.

Google Video I believe doesn't have a max file size limit, but they do recompress your video to whatever codec they use.
Youtube (not sure about file size limit), but after re-enconding into FLV, the quality is pretty depressing.

I haven't tried the others listed on the site, but I currently use PutFile ( http://www.putfile.com/ [putfile.com] ). They have a limit of 25MB for videos and no longer allows direct downoading, but they're decent and actually play back the original file. For larger files, most people probably won't want to view it in the browser anyway, so I upload to RapidShare ( http://www.rapidshare.de/ [rapidshare.de] ) which allows a maximum of 100MB and unlimited downloads. Though for anyone that's used RapidShare, you know about the wait times.

Re:file size / compressopmg (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094453)

All the Google videos I've downloaded appear to be DivX. I don't think they have a bitrate limit.

I think if you encode directly to DivX yourself, quality will probably not suffer as much from their recompression process.

Re:file size / compressopmg (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094656)

For larger files, most people probably won't want to view it in the browser anyway, so I upload to RapidShare ( http://www.rapidshare.de/ [rapidshare.de] ) which allows a maximum of 100MB and unlimited downloads.


http://www.badongo.com/ [badongo.com]

http://www.uploadjar.com/ [uploadjar.com]

I'm just glad I can play all these videos at home (1)

ad68 (903921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093865)

because, wait for it, I still have my beta deck. late in the game, he shoots, and yes, mod's be, he scores!!

MSN Video? (1)

loconet (415875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15093943)

Am I the only one who has never heard of "MSN Video" ?

Re:MSN Video? (1)

Anomalous custard (16635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094423)

Maybe because of the following, from http://video.msn.com/ [msn.com]

To use this product, you need to install free software
This product requires Microsoft© Internet Explorer 6, Microsoft© Media Player 10, and Macromedia Flash 7. To download these free software applications, click the links below and follow the on-screen instructions.

Rob

Dont Miss Videosift.com Either! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15093977)

Users ranking the best of Youtube and Google Video.

Re:Dont Miss Videosift.com Either! (1)

Dag Maggot (139855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094008)

Thanks for the recommendation anonymous coward. I concur. ( :
www.videosift.com

Videosift (1)

sourbrew (935413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094039)

VideoSift has garnered more than a million ip's in 2 months of operation. It is certainly worth checking out if you haven't already.

Limited Availability (3, Informative)

earthstar (748263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094041)

Looks like you guys didnt know that Google Video is not available in many parts of the world.

Here in India,Google Video simply gives a error Message- " Thanks for your interest,This service is unavailable for your region".

OTOH,Youtube works fine.

Re:Limited Availability (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094241)

Yep, got that error until recently here in Germany, too.

Re:Limited Availability (1)

aeschenkarnos (517917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094430)

There should be a way to get around this sort of problem - making your IP look like it originates in the US or somewhere.

Funny you should mention... (1)

Josh teh Jenius (940261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094261)

Funny you should mention those video sites. I've been up all night playing with YouTubes API, but don't worry, the result is well worth it (check sig).

If anyone likes this script, please help yourself. I'd love to see a "best of 80's cheese" or "best old school sci fi" list if anyone else is as addicted as I am.

Oh thank you goodness, d/l complete. Time for more Ren & Stimpy...

Call me immature if you must, but IMO, this is what Sunday was made for.

phanfare.com (1)

jmac7 (967166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15094490)

Dont understand why they didnt mention phanfare.com. Its pretty much best site ive found http://jmacdonald.phanfare.com/ [phanfare.com]

too many variables for a perfect site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15094510)

There are way too many variables to create the "perfect" site.

Youtube is using ffmpeg to dynamically convert any video to flv files. If you look at the FFMpeg site, they admit there are potential legal issues behind the differant patents on the codecs.

Compressing videos is a PAIN on windows, unless you get something like sorenson squeeze. Windows Media encoder is OK, but isn't the best.

The h.264 codec is unreal as far as quality versus size. But most people don't upgrade quicktime, or know of the alternatives.

*shameless plug* I've got a site for rock climbing videos, urbanclimbermag.tv [urbanclimbermag.tv] that allows users to upload their own videos.
Since it's a content specific site (and smaller target audience), it's easier to try to create standards for users that view and upload videos.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>