Flickr Video vs. Youtube vs. Vimeo4 / 9 / 2008
So I heard about Flickr offering video in addition to photos. I'm sure you have as well. I was worried that the quality of the videos wouldn't hold up to the high standards set by the enormous sizes (at least pro members) can upload. However I was pleasantly pleased when I uploaded a video that I've uploaded to both Vimeo (my favorite) and Youtube (blah!) so that I could see the differences myself.
I was very impressed initially by the speed of both the upload and the processing, faster than both Youtube and Vimeo. And the video quality is quite excellent.
Things that suck
Videos can only be a total of 90 seconds long! Notice how the Flickr video just cuts off. I guess this explains the quick processing! Maybe I'll just toss up all the BS crap clips of footage that I have yet to use.
Not HD (even though I don't have an HD camera... yet). I'm almost surprised that the videos aren't HD; especially b/c Flickr started out as a pro-level photography site, until it got merged with Yahoo photos. I do admit that I myself put all of my 'partying' pictures up. But they are still usually not too stupid. I guess the whole integration with yahoo pictures just seemed to cheapen the website. Sort of like when you're favorite bar that not many people have ever heard of all of a sudden gets popular and you wish it were the way it used to be. Oh well, people gotta make money and stay in business right?
Flickr video falls pretty damn short. The deal breaker is the 90 second cut off. I have a small Casio Exlim digital photo camera that takes awesome video that doesn't have a time limit! Many cameras have gotten past the 30 and 60 second video shots!