Because I likes my quality, I uploaded the video to my computer as high quality as I could. So in addition to being seventeen minutes long (too long for youtube or Blogger video), it is also three gigabytes in size (way too large for most video hosts).
I thought I had solved this issue by finding Google Video. They have no file size or length limitations. What they do suggest, however, is to use this thing called the Google Video Uploader if your file happens to be over 100 megabytes. So, I downloaded the sucker. Tried to upload the .avi of my play. More than 48 hours later, it still hadn't uploaded onto Google Video's server from my computer. So, I tried to troubleshoot.
Google Video is telling me I should convert the file to an mpeg-4 with an mp3 audio layer, and that it should not have been shot/imported in widescreen. Suck. But, it goes on to note, it should still work. Only, it hasn't, and there has been no further help. So, for the time being, no video of my play just yet.
But, this whole looking-and-trying-to-find-a-video-host thing got me thinking; I looked at three options; Blogger Video, YouTube and Google Video. Each has distinct characteristics, advantages. For instance, Blogger Video keeps all of my content right there together. The video is not imbedded in my blog from somewhere else like YouTube, it's part of the disk space my blog takes up. For free! YouTube has the recognition, the easily-navigable website we're all very familiar with now, and high traffic for such things to become nice and viral. While Google Video has the advantage of being limitless in regards to file size and length. But the strange thing about this is...all three of these options are owned and controlled by Google. I hate to make this comparison, because I love my gmail and I dig Blogger, but Google is becoming the Internet's equivalent of Rupert Murdoch. In fact...I'm not sure, but...does Rupert Murdoch own Google? Or does NewsCorp have some sort of partnership with Google? I know NewsCorp owns myspace.com, and I know Google and myspace have partnered in the past...well, that sounds like some research I will never do. Oh well. Anyway, I guess the question I have is this: Why does one company have to offer three different brands of video hosting? It just seems silly.
Anyway, if anybody out there has any suggestions for the video, let me know. Thanks for staying tuned!
3 comments:
"Why does one company have to offer three different brands of video hosting?"
You kind of answered your own question earlier. Each video server has its own differences and advantages.
Plus, you have to remember that Google didn't create all of these services; they got Youtube and Blogger through acquisitions. Perhaps there are plans to consolidate all three into one mega video server, but that will take quite some time to get it right.
Well now I feel silly. Sometimes I am just way too literal; like only using a forklift to lift pallets of forks.
But hooray for visiting Minnesota!
Hey where is the video :) Yes you are sitting right there... and complaining about how I am hogging the computer after you just got home and I had dental work done today and am in pain... poor you.
Post a Comment