After looking at a few other comparisons of current video hosts around the web, I decided to post one of my own. Partially because I disagree with some of the findings, but also to include a few different details and at least one host that was excluded.
The reference file that was uploaded is an 848×480 30fps H.264 mov, originally shot on a Panasonic Lumix LX1. It is available for direct download here.
I’m going to compare 5 hosts that I see as the foremost options at the time this is published, for people to upload random creative videos. If I wanted to distribute a show, or fully produced series of my own creation I would seriously consider blip.tv for the extra features and syndication options, but its content focus falls slightly beyond the range of this review.
vimeo:
vimeo is one of the highest quality video hosts I have seen yet with a few minor drawbacks. The video quality is exceptional and the player is unobtrusive and easily customizable.
On a standard account you are limited to 500MB upload bandwidth per week. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to make some concessions for free hosting and this is actually very smart. One thing that is very frustrating is a host that limits videos by length (total run time), vimeo avoids this allowing the user to make the choice between length and quality by what compression settings you choose to use on your own source file to stay under 500MB.
The file embedded above is not HD since I do not have a vimeo+ account which is available for $60 a year and in addition to HD, increases the weekly limit to 5GB (1GB per file), along with a myriad of other benefits and customization options. Absolutely worth the price considering their exceptional quality but for one small detail, it only includes 25,000 HD embedded plays. Plenty you say? Sure it is a relatively large number and more plays are available at $25 per 10,000 but it creates a new cost uncertainty and additional monitoring is then required on the part of the producers (you). –If I upgrade to vimeo+ at some point I will review the tools for monitoring and controlling these plays since that is essential for any service that implements caps like this.
SmugMug:
The quality of standard video SmugMug is fairly good, and the HD is easily on par with vimeo, but the two differ distinctly in their methods for managing capacity.
Having set up a SmugMug pro account for my own photography previously, I was able to take a look at more than the standard video features they offer, since they are essentially tiered by account type. Much the way Flickr is a photo hosting site and added (albeit nearly useless) video capability, SmugMug is as well (except with actually useful video capability). Because of this, other limitations, and the cost involved, it only seems practical if you also plan to make use of their exceptional photo hosting and printing services.
SmugMug, unlike vimeo, allows power subscribers and up ($60 per year) an unlimited number of uploads. The catch is that no video can be more than 10 minutes long. I understand the need to control capacity in some way, a 10 minute limit has already forced me to look for other options on more than one occasion.
Pro accounts ($150 per year) are able to upload and display HD Video up to an astonishing 1080p, but are still bound by the same frustrating 10 minute limit. An additional “feature” of SmugMug is that once uploaded, the videos are available in a variety of sizes and formats. However, this can easily become overwhelming (and the way these are defined is also somewhat confusing). I would rather see that extra space allocated to greater time limits.
Facebook:
Facebook? Yes. Honestly this one surprised me too. You might not think of Facebook as a video hosting service at first, but not only is it free, the quality is at the top of all the sites I reviewed and it has an added benefit.
First the bad. As far as I can tell, Facebook does not host true HD but like YouTube offers a “High Quality” mode that in Facebook’s case actually lives up to its name. Another minor hurdle is that it requires a bit more effort to get everything set up correctly in the Facebook universe as it is first and foremost a social network, not a video hosting service.
However, if you are willing to overcome that hurdle, therein lies its additional benefit. Granted, vimeo is also a social network of sorts. The sort that if you are interested in critiques from your creative peers, that is the place to be. Facebook on the other hand not only integrates tools for you to reach people of all sorts on their network, but tools so that those people can help their friends and family find you as well. While YouTube may have a bigger audience, Facebook allows you to reach a niche and spread your content virally far more effectively and the value of that should never be underestimated.
viddler:
viddler and YouTube are marginally similar, particularly in quality (or lack thereof), but they do have a few distinct differences.
First, you seem to be limited to a one-size-fits-all option as far as quality is concerned. There are more options for resolution when embedding a file, but there does not appear to be any option for HD.
The player, while being fairly bulky and obtrusive, is at least marginally customizable and you do have the unique ability to brand the player with your own logo/watermark.
YouTube:
Not much needs to be said about YouTube. Easily they have the largest potential audience (provided you know how to tag and title) but as we all know, their quality leaves much to be desired.
I supposed if you hosted such a mind blowing quantity of video data you would probably compress the living $#!% out of it as well. That said, they are clearly making some significant improvements and more depends on the quality of your source file than ever before. The “HQ” mode is passable, and the do offer an HD resolution of sorts, while not crystal clear, is at least headed in the right direction (and still free).
Conclusion:
I wish there were one host that clearly dominated the review, but as you can see they each have unique benefits and drawbacks that will be of differing importance to you depending on your needs. If SmugMug were to find a solution to the time limit they would be my choice. If vimeo came up with more options for viewership they would easily dominate amateur and professional users. If Facebook starts offering HD, watch out. If YouTube steps up ther compression quality, they could become a serious contender. These are tumultuous times as the shift to HD is now fully underway and I suspect that these hosts will continue to adapt and others may spring up where we least expect. Stay tuned!
