eNews Exclusive: Online Video Distribution

In the past, that meant either wearing out a lot of shoe leather going from door to door to convince your friends to see it, paying for VHS or DVD distribution or convincing a TV producer to air it.

Fortunately, those bad old days are gone forever, thanks to the Internet. However, too many still think that video distribution means two choices: YouTube ( www.youtube.com) and Google Video (http://video.google.com). And while those early heavyweights are still often great choices, several other online video options have entered the fray. But first, let's go inside YouTube to understand how Internet video distribution came of age in 2005.

YouTube got there early and made its name as the McDonald's of online video distribution, with millions and millions served. Launched in late 2005 and purchased less than a year later by Google for a cool $1.65 billion, it was one of the first sites that made it easier for bloggers and others on the Internet to embed video clips on their Web pages. (http://tinyurl.com/2n4c7q)

Before YouTube, online video often required an annoying wait while its data stream was downloaded and buffered into the viewing computer. YouTube considerably increased download speed for most broadband users by using Macromedia's Flash Player 7 or higher (already in about 90 percent of Web browsers) and the Sorenson Spark H.263 video codec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube). The use of a readily-available viewer like Flash Player meant that although the video creator still needed a little technical savvy to upload the video, the viewer had nothing to do but click. And that was the secret sauce.

Reuters estimates that YouTube has more visitors than those of all of its rivals - combined. However, YouTube has its flaws. It has a reputation for removing any video that might remotely have a copyright violation and anything vaguely controversial, if someone complains. And unless you've got a high-end "director's account" with the site, your videos will have to be under ten minutes in length.

However, YouTube is far from the only option for online video distribution. We recently spoke with Scott Baker and Liz Stephans, veteran television journalists who left Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV to become partners with Andrew Breitbart, the proprietor of the news aggregation site Breitbart.com (www.breitbart.com), in a new venture called Breitbart.tv. (www.breitbart.tv) Breitbart has also assisted Web sites as diverse as news aggregator the Drudge Report (www.drudgreport.com), and the Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) celebrity Weblog.

Baker and Stephans are Breitbart.tv's technical advisors and have experimented with uploading potential content for the site to numerous online video distribution sites. Visiting the URLs that they'll mention in a moment will be a great starting point to deciding which video distribution sites are best for you.

One criterion for Baker and Stephans is how quickly they need to get breaking news clips online. The time it takes to get your video uploaded, converted into an easily downloadable format and, in some cases, approved may not matter if your video isn't time-critical. But with more bloggers adding a video component to their sites, upload time can be important.

So, for those for whom speed is of the essence, which sites offer the fastest turnaround for uploads? "This wouldn't be a scientific study, of course," Baker says, "but I think YouTube is not bad. We haven't used BitGravity (www.bitgravity.com) a tremendous amount yet, but one of the reasons that we like them for distribution is that they have a really fast play." Liz Stephans adds, "I know that Blip (http://blip.tv) is really fast. I think that they actually put your video up while they continue to convert it, so I think you get a pretty quick turnaround there."

Baker also likes Revver (www.revver.com) for its speed. "But Revver says that they require human approval, that there is an actual person who will have to clear that video, and some of the hosting sites have that step as well." As a way of offsetting the site's costs, Revver does typically insert an ad for another video or Web site at the end of each clip, which may or may not be an issue for your project. In contrast, Stephans says, "We like Google Video, and we've put things on there that have done well, but it takes a while" for a clip to be added to the site. And Google lacks the ability to add chapters to its content, unlike sites such as Motionbox (www.motionbox.com). However, for those who wish to aim content at a marketplace that may not have broadband, Google Video's download video option may be a plus.

While there are exceptions to the rule, for the most part, when preparing a clip for an online distribution site, architect Mies van der Rohe's legendary aphorism comes to mind: Less is more. Many sites cap the size of the file to 100MB or less, and typically to under ten minutes, unless you've signed up for a premium account (which may require a fee) or have a waiver from the site to allow larger files. That means experimenting with compression ratios when rendering a video will be necessary to reach the right combination of picture quality and file size. When picture quality is an issue, several higher resolution shorter clips (perhaps titled Part One, Part Two, etc.) are better than one large, fuzzy, over-compressed file.

When you shoot your video, it can be extremely helpful to keep in mind the small screen that most distribution sites use. Because the quality can diminish when you compress a longer clip down to fit a site's maximum file size, a solid background may generate fewer artifacts than one with plenty of motion. An interview shot from across a conference table that would look fine full-screen may need more closeups and cutaways to look interesting in that two-by-three-inch format.

What does the future of online video distribution portend? RayV (http://rayv.tv) is a site that facilitates live video, something that Stephans, Baker and Breitbart are keen to experiment with. Vividas (www.vividas.com) specializes in high-resolution feeds. Right now, its primary users are companies such as Sony, who have uploaded letterboxed movie trailers that play on a monitor's full screen, via Java and ActiveX browser plug-ins contained in the Vividas software. Look to the resolution of online distribution sites in general to improve in the coming years.

This is a mixed blessing, as Liz Stephans notes. "The Web is the great equalizer," she says. "You don't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in equipment, and it doesn't have to be perfectly lit. There's a lot of forgiveness there, because people feel a raw clip is often more ‘real,' and they experience video differently on the Web. So I think a lot of it is experimenting in terms of what works for you and how people take that in. But the need for your video to be spot-on like it would need to be on cable or network television just isn't there."

Of course, for many reading Videomaker , the need to be spot-on is what it's all about, but there's no doubt that online distribution sites encourage experimentation. Since you're a Videomaker subscriber and are "in the know" about techniques and gear and your skills are more enhanced than the average YouTube producer, your videos can shine. So, Ladies and Gentlemen, start your uploads!

Ed Driscoll is a freelance journalist covering home theater and the media for the past decade.