Fresh from a dip in the world of blip.tv, I’ll compare my test screen capture file in all three. (960 x 720 wmv).

Video on YouTube

Video on Viddler

Video on blip.tv

The video quality looks the best on blip.tv but the right side of the video is cropped in the player. In addition, the sound is garbled. I’ll have to do some testing from other locations to see what happens.  Yet, my initial impression is that Viddler wins this comparison test.

I started this blog as a way to remind myself how to create good videos for the web. I’ve gotten tired of looking for the post-it on my desk about pixel resolution on Viddler. Hence this blog post.

Viddler Pixel Resolution
Web site: 543 x 408 (video only)
Embedded code default: 437 x 370 (video and player controls)

This leads me to believe that capturing screen captures at 1088 x 816 may be a good experiment.

One problem that I encountered when posting screen capture videos resulted from incompatible codecs. Below are two videos: the top video shows the problem and the bottom video is rendered correctly.

Problem Video

Corrected Video

I captured and encoded the video in CamStudio using the CamStudio Lossless Codec v1.0. However, my video rendering software (Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum Edition) didn’t know how to decode that codec. That’s what caused the error. The solution was easy: I changed my compressor to Microsoft Video 1. The image below shows the codec that caused the problem.

While doing research on Viddler, I watched a video by sonicsuns. His video from August 2, 2007 gives recent statistics for how many people comment on YouTube videos versus Viddler.

Video on Viddler

I took some test video with a digital camcorder of a building under construction. This test video was taken at a ratio of 16:9.

Input Video (with Audio)
Type: avi
Resolution: 720 x 480
Size: 480 MB
Running Time: 2:10 minutes
MB/min: 222 MB/min

Resultant Videos (Reference Settings)

MOV on Viddler

WMV on Viddler

WMV on YouTube

Conclusions

1. The rendering time for 16:9 is 10-20% less since the pixels of the letterbox don’t change
2. This 16:9 video format is better for subjects that are low and wide
3. The higher resolution WMV yields noticeably better results than the low resolution MOV
4. The WMV looks better on Viddler due to the larger viewing window and ability to watch video in its original size

I took some test video with a digital camcorder of a building under construction. This test video was taken at a ratio of 3:2.

Input Video (with Audio)
Type: avi
Resolution: 720 x 480
Size: 492 MB
Running Time: 2:13 minutes
MB/min: 222 MB/min

Resultant Videos (Reference Settings)

You can compare the videos below. The red and white sign at 1:19 into the video is a good point to perform the comparison.

MOV on Viddler

WMV on Viddler

WMV on YouTube

Conclusions

The higher resolution WMV yields noticeably better results than the low resolution MOV. The WMV looks better on Viddler than YouTube and that’s primarily due to two reasons:

1. The Viddler viewing window is bigger
2. Viddler gives the option of viewing the video in its original size (720 x 480)

Time is the biggest constraint for amateur video production. Free disk space is the number two constraint and always a concern. Even though disk space is inexpensive, video eats it up quickly. This post looks at the disk space requirements for screen capture.

Input Files
Video (screen capture – no audio)
Type: .avi
Resolution: 960 x 720 pixels
Size: 499 MB
Running Time: 4:53
MB/min: 102 MB/min

Audio
Type: .wav
Channels: mono
Size: 35.8 MB
Running Time: 6:57
MB/min: 5.2 MB/min

Resulting Video
Type: .wmv
Resolution: 960 x 720 pixels
Size: 35.3 MB
Running Time: 5:04 minutes
MB/min: 7.0 MB/minute

Video on Viddler

Rendering Quick Time (MOV) Files
The goal was to produce the best Quick Time video possible in 320 x 240 pixels. I used the 1 Mbps Video setting.

MOV, 320 x 240, 1 Mbps Video

Type: .mov
Resolution: 320 x 240 pixels
Template: 1 Mbps Video
Size: 36.3 MB
Running Time: 4:55 minutes
Rendering Time: 47 minutes
Rendering to Running Time Ratio: 9.6:1

The ratio is one of the constraints in video production. At 9.6:1, a 5-minute video requires approximately 48 minutes to render.

Rendering Windows Media Video (WMV) Files
The goal was to produce the best WMV video in 960 x 720 pixels. I had to use the Default Template to produce video at that odd resolution. The standard templates allow the following resolutions: 320 x 240, 640 x 480, 1280 x 720, or 1440 x 1080.

WMV, 960 x 720, Default

Type: .wmv
Resolution: 960 x 720 pixels
Template: Default
Size: 35.3 MB
Running Time: 5:04 minutes
Rendering Time: 78 minutes
Rendering to Running Time Ratio: 15:1

At this ratio, a 5-minute video requires approximately 77 minutes to render. In sum, this resolution WMV requires about 50% more time to render than the low resolution MOV. Still, the improved video quality is well worth the extra time.

For video editing, I use Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum Edition. I selected it because of a friend’s recommendation. He noted that it had all the features of more popular video editing software at a much better price. In addition, his research showed that it was rock stable and not prone to crashing. He chose the Platinum Edition over the regular edition because it supported high-definition video.

I used a few versions of free software before purchasing Vegas Movie Studio Platinum Edition and it was a real step up. It’s done everything I’ve needed and hasn’t crashed once. As a result, I give it a big thumbs up.

Since my posts mention rendering times, here are the specs for the computer I use for creating video. It’s an old but reliable machine. Plus, it’s hooked up to a KVM switch so I can do other things on a different computer while it’s rendering. (Like write this post.)

• Compaq Presario 6000
• Windows XP
• AMD Athlon XP Model 2200, 1.8Ghz
• 1.5 GB PC2100DDR SDRAM
• Integrated Graphics (AMD)
• Creative Soundblaster Live Value 5.1
• Built in April 2003