When Ian first suggested I start this blog over Ethiopian lunch a few months back, I started making a list of useful posts to write. Ironically, the first real post on this blog is about how the first one on that list – what video hosting service to use – is now moot.
That little 'watch in HD' link in the bottom right corner used to say 'watch in high quality.'
In chatting with the guys over at Handsome Donkey about what to do with their new site (which isn’t done yet), one of the topics that came up was what service they should be using to host their videos. They put a lot of production value into their work, and it frankly gets lost at ‘YouTube quality.’ We talked about using a service like Vimeo for embedding the videos on their site. But, it was a no-brainer that they needed to at least have their videos on YouTube in parallel for two reasons: 1) the YouTube audience is too big to ignore; and 2) view count on YouTube is the closest thing web video has to Nielsen tv ratings (and a hell of a lot more accurate).
As of Friday, there’s no more dilemma since it appears YouTube is now offering real 1080 x 720 HD for some videos. You can check out the full specs in comparison to other services here, but the bottom line is that YouTube HD is pretty much tied with Facebook HD for the highest quality. (On a geeky side-note, Vimeo’s encoding, VP6, is less processor intensive for the end-user than everyone else’s, H264.) It’s not clear yet how the decisions are being made on which videos are offered in HD vs. ‘high quality,’ but the first requirement is definitely to use the beta uploader (which allows for files up to 1GB) and upload the highest quality version of your video.
With the ability to embed high quality videos, the custom player wizard, and the chromeless player API, the folks at YouTube are getting rid of the most common excuses not to use them to embed videos on your site. And, the value of getting as many views, ratings, and comments on YouTube as possible greatly outweighs pretty much all other considerations.
Update 1/29/2009: After in-depth testing, Webware has weighed in on its pick for the top HD video hosting service — YouTube. The full post is interesting and contains a head-to-head comparison table (though on features and price, not encoding specs). But in case you’re busy, here’s the Cliff’s Notes version 
The victor: YouTube
This time around, we feel really comfortable giving YouTube the quality crown. Its HD encoding is really nice, and you can’t beat the price (free). One thing that really separates it from the others is that you can do so many things with your clip once it’s up there. You can replace the music, as well as add subtitles and annotations. Community members can also respond to it, adding in-line video replies.Runners up: Vimeo and SmugMug
Only one of these services will really cost you money (SmugMug), but both give you really great-looking HD Web video. A nod must be given to Vimeo for blazing the trail here. It’s been doing HD video for a while now, and it is one of the most colorful and beautiful sites around. Likewise, SmugMug’s player and interface are top notch, although it’s not as social, and the $150 price tag might be a turn-off to casual users who don’t intend to use its photo-hosting features.
