I haven’t had any time to write a new blog entry since my summer holiday ended and my parents have left back to the States.

I wanted to see the differences between some video sharing services because I am an avid amateur videographer. So I have done some comparison between YouTube, Flickr and Facebook. I didn’t get to analyze Google Video since I haven’t used that service.

These were the criteria:

• Length of video allowed
• Maximum file size
• Aspect ratio

YouTube:
Length of video allowed: 10 min
Maximum file size: 1 GB
Aspect ratio: 4×3

Flickr:
Length of video allowed: 90 sec
Maximum file size: 150 MB
Aspect ratio: 4×3 and 16×9

Facebook:
Length of video allowed: 20 min
Maximum file size: 300 MB
Aspect ratio: 4×3 and 16×9

So YouTube allows the largest file size at 1 GB to upload while Flickr only allows 150 MB and Facebook is middle of the road with 300 MB. Talk about a difference. Obviously, all the supported video type; whether it’s MPEG, AVI, or MOV will be compressed to an FLV format on the Web. The end result of your video quality is nothing like the original.

Here is a comparison between YouTube and Facebook:

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJLryno9VE

Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/video/video.php?v=21511576921
(can’t seem to embed the video to WordPress)

Apparently on YouTube, I couldn’t find a way to upload a 16×9 aspect ratio video, which is in HQ. I couldn’t find any information on their help section about this issue. So I end up Googling for an answer, but there wasn’t an easy method. I had to export the video file in a 4×3 format although the video was 16×9. This way, the top and bottom portion of the video will be black. The end result is not a true 16×9 format. What’s good now is that YouTube has the option to “watch in high quality”.

Facebook was much easier. It allows you to upload the original file format, whether it’s 4×3 or 16×9, the video application renders the aspect ratio correctly, as it’s supposed to be. In my opinion, Facebook’s video quality is even better than YouTube.

If you upload a video with a large file size, but within the allowed time length, YouTube will compress it so much that your video becomes blurry. Therefore, you would try to get the original file size down to around 200 MB. This will also help with the upload time.

We haven’t mentioned anything about Flickr in the comparison. Here’s a different video for comparison purpose: http://www.flickr.com/photos/savannara/2540561394/in/set-72157605344590933/
(can’t seem to embed the video to WordPress)

Flickr is very easy – much similar to their photo service. It recognizes the different aspect ratios and renders them on the screen perfectly. I was happy about that. I didn’t have any issues, except for the limited length of video time.

Overall, I like the Facebook video application because it provided a large screen for your video, allows a fair video size for upload and 20 min is doubled that of YouTube. That said, YouTube is the de facto video service that every socialites go to and share videos with the world. It’s safe to say that YouTube has the market. The only thing that I really don’t know is the social networking aspect of Facebook. The rule has been that you allow only your friends to view your profile and share/interact with you. When I uploaded the video from above, it gave me a few options and the first one was to allow everyone to view. But I think it’s only available to all of your friends and not to the general public, like YouTube and Flickr, where anyone can add a comment to your video. Other Facebook options are “Your friends and tagged people’s friends,” or “Only your friends.” To me, it’s pretty confusing options.

So what’s my preference? For the mass, it has to be YouTube, but for quality, Facebook gets my vote. If I want to share my videos to the world, upload to all the video services. That said, too much time will go to uploading the same videos.