My source is usually 1080p but I still upload only 720p encoded at 6Mbps or 4Mbps if it's a longer program.

Bob.

Thanks for the replies.

@Chienworks - Personally I see a very significant difference between 480p and 720p on YouTube (as long as I go to a big window or full screen), but much less of a difference between 720p and 1080p.

@Bob - Is that because you don't think it's worth it, or big files to upload, or some other reason?

I am concerned that a 1440x1080i > 1920x1080p conversion cannot be as "clean" as a conversion to 1280x720p because of the upscaling/rescaling of the width from 1440 to 1920. And I reckon YouTube's subsequent downscale to 1280x720p is likely to lose more crispness.

In 20+ million views of 720p-max videos on YouTube I've only ever had one comment that there's no 1080p version, but that's not to say I shouldn't be providing one in the future. Also I suppose the lack of a 1080p version might potentially limit the audience one day.

I never drop below 1080. Push that envelope. Do the best you can. If you have the space, and they give you the storage, why not? Net speeds get faster and faster, more space, next couple years 4k is coming out... then 8k. Don't go backwards.

Thanks for prompting me the look at the subject on a personal level.

1) My DSL Internet connection at 1.5 mbps download (much lower upload) hasn't changed. Edit: 9-02-13 Got 25mbps down, 5 mbps up Internet over cable yesterday.

2) Neither of my two plasma panels with 1024x768 native resolution have changed. [I]That 34" CRT is still in the guest bedroom though I'm beginning to think of it as an earthquake risk and it may be gone soon.[/I]

3) My primary display at work has a 1280x1024 native resolution.

4) All the other displays at work that I use have a 1680x1050 native resolution.

5) My display that I use at home has a 1680x1050 native resolution.

6) The cameras that feed me video shoot 1) 1440x1080-60i and 2) 1920x1080-24p or 1280x720-30p.

I have uploaded 1920x1080-24p but it was not for my benefit. Maybe, for others.

[I]" Is that because you don't think it's worth it, or big files to upload, or some other reason?"[/I]

I don't think it's worth it. By default YT sends a 360por some such low res version by default it seems. I do notice of late they have some "auto" feature though. Given that my thinking is most of my audience is not going to change the default resolution.

Big files to upload. This can be a factor as well. I am limited to 2GB uploads to YT but uploading 2GB takes about a day so I like to keep my uploads to under 1GB.

In your case I would also share your concerns, as you're shooting 1440x1080 interlaced, 720p is probably as clean if not cleaner than 1080p. Perhaps it's time to think about a new camera although I appreciate in your case that's going to be very expensive. Only a couple of weeks ago I was looking at reviews of underwater housings, OUCH, the top shelf units cost as much if not more than the camera that goes in the thing.

Bob.

I'll bring up another subject that's likely relevant: More and more content is being watched on smart phones and tablets. I recently went looking at smart phones and was enamored with those that had 1280x720 native resolution. I don't know how high tablet resolutions go.

Nick, your content is always fabulous so just do what is most expeditious for you. Great content always trumps 720p versus 1080p versus 2k versus . . .

Regards,

Kimberly

Nick,
Good question.
I think we're close. I'll be sticking with 720p for a while, but I see 1080p uploads coming for me.
-- The 720p Youtube downrez version from 1080p is definitely better than it was two years ago.
-- Giving viewers a choice is a good idea since more and more people play YT directly on their large screen TVs.
-- Up/Down connections, and CPUs are faster, as many people replace older machines. I just had my connection speed doubled.
-- Your thought about upscaling 1440 horizontal to 1080 is really not an issue afaiac. I can't see a difference between stretched pixels and more pixels, never have.

The downsides:
-- Shooting 1080p eats up phone/pocket cam memory and batteries fast.
--1080 is not very portable. One movie can fill up a thumb drive in a hurry. >4GB files still do not play on many devices.
-- Making 1080 intermediates can eat up a lot of time and space, as well as the encodes themselves.
-- They are still slow to upload and process on YT.
-- Most people don't have 1080p computer monitors, so they end up being downscaled.
-- The quality isn't "that"much better on TV screens under 47", which I'll never have.
-- Most phones, tablets, and portables still don't accept 1080p.
-- Kids, who love to pass movies, music vids, and YT around on on thumb and microSD drives to play on their tablets and phones, absolutely love 720p. Most wouldn't watch anything else. It's almost universally playable.

In any event, I would never trust Youtube to correct anamorphic or interlace for me. I would still use Handbrake or one of your workflows to do that.

Thanks again everyone.

@Bob - I've noticed that the resolution served by YouTube seems to be higher by default if the window is bigger, but bandwidth is probably taken into account as well. In the YouTube setting there is a setting to "Always play HD on full screen (when available)" that I think is off by default. I doubt most viewers are aware of it. And there's nothing in the settings to set a preference for 720p or 1080p.

Personally I'm always going to the little cog and increasing the resolution of videos to a higher one. I suspect I'm in a tiny minority. My girlfriend says she often does the opposite so videos load faster.

@John Dennis - Yes, the prevalence of 1280x720 phone and tablet displays is an argument in favour of 720p upload, for now.

@Kimberly - Thanks, and for sure content is king, but I really think for our sort of videos it's worth doing everything you can to maximise the presentation quality. A small drop in quality can be the difference between a YouTube video getting the critical mass to take off or not.

@musicvid - Good summary of the issues and thanks for raising some things I hadn't thought of such as the storage I'll need for 90 mins of 1080p lossless intermediates.

( @Bob- Will definitely get a new camera and housing when I'm ready to shoot underwater again. Still working with existing footage mountain for now. GH3 in Nauticam would be my choice for macro, and PMW200 in Gates would be my choice for wide (or maybe 5D3 in Nauticam). The market is so diverse and confusing these days, and no rig really seems to excel at both wide and macro. The full frame cams are great for low light performance at depth, but the large sensor makes macro difficult because of shallow depth of field. And yes, the good housings are expensive. )

Nick, I upload 1080 or 720 depending on how long my video is. My upload speeds are still relatively slow, so if it's around 2mins it's 1080 and if it's 20 mins it's definitely 720. Youtube's auto feature detects user bandwidth and sets the resolution accordingly, so I wouldn't worry about streaming issues--that's out of your control.

No matter what you upload to Youtube, make sure the "Fast Start," "Web Optimized," or "Progressive Download" flag is set in the encode. Doing so makes Youtube's combined upload/processing speed almost twice as fast!

A year ago I increased my DSL download speed from 3 to 12 mbps. I thought I would finally be able to enjoy smooth 1080p from YouTube and Vimeo. However, even on my fastest computer, I cannot get smooth 1080p from either service, whereas the 720p works flawlessly.

I live in the boonies, and I don't think I'm going to get faster speed any time soon. Also, I'm not sure the problem is my connection. I get fantastic quality, with a dedicated box (XBox) streaming Netflix. Also, when I got that 4x improvement in speed, the quality of the HD video didn't improve. Therefore, I think the 1080p vs. 720p issues are still entirely on YouTube and Vimeo. In my experience, things with 1080p have actually gotten worse the past few months.

So, for me, no tipping point yet.

P.S. I can play 1080p (and higher) on my computer from local sources (hard drive, etc.) with no problem.

It still takes a pretty hefty cpu to play back flash-delivered 1080p smoothly and reliably, moreso from YT and Vimeo. This is independent from download speed. One thing that "can" help is toggling Hardware Acceleration in your Flash player to see if that makes a difference.

Also, some versions of Flash Player are worse than others for jumping (dropped frames). High peak bitrates in high-motion areas are notorious for causing this, just as low minimum bitrates cause artifacts and blocking in fades, shadows, and the like.
Unfortunately, when the content is being served to us rather than created by us, there is precious little we can do about it.

until decent net speeds are universal 720p rules my day.

that said, like previous comments, the difference between 720 vs 1080 ISN'T anywhere as significant as 480 vs 720.

and frankly, as has also been pointed out, CONTENT is what matters - people will still watch vhs quality if what's shown is of interest to them.

and, yes, the growing use of mobile / tablets means 720 is more than adequate*.

*after watching the general quality of youtube stuff, anything i produce for a mobile looks like bertolucci ;-)

Also, some versions of Flash Player are worse than others for jumping (dropped frames).I'd be very interested if anyone has definitive information on this. Somewhere in the past six months, flash video has gotten very "jerky" (starting and stopping) when panning. I've tried downgrading Flash (there is a page on the Adobe site with all the old downloads), but there are almost forty downloads to choose from, so I didn't know how far back to go. Also, my Firefox browser added some sort of security check for "outdated plugins," and made it very difficult to play Flash videos using the older versions. I never upgrade anything unless there is a feature I desperately need, or unless there is a major problem that has been fixed.

So if anyone knows why Flash has gone downhill and has a fix, I'd sure like to know.

My Flash version: 11.7.700.202
My Firefox version: 14.0.1 (although I have a much later version on some of my lesser computers, and I think that is even slower and worse).

When was the last time a browser upgrade actually did something good or useful?

"

Your Flash version is a baddie. So bad in fact, I felt compelled to post about it last spring.
Notice: Adobe Flash Player 11,7,700,202 is buggy!
Better since I rolled back to 169, and I haven't installed any new versions, even though the screens keep bugging me.
Still can't run Youtube HD fullscreen, but then I'm on a dual core notebook.

I too, stuck with Firefox 14, because anything later doesn't support my modem's html interface.

Better since I rolled back to 169Perfect! That's exactly what I needed to know.

Because of the weekly upload limit on Vimeo and the long videos I have which are usually an hour for AM and 2 hours for PM I have no choice but to use 720p and a lower bit rate than Vimeo suggests.

I can use a higher rate and size on smaller videos only.

So right now Vimeo is the cause of my limitations. I cannot afford an alternate account to make up for that either.

Nope still 720P.
Local tv wants 720P as they pack several subprograms in their channel.

I can deliver a commercial spot on USB 3.0 thumbdrives cheaply or FTP it.

last year I tested unlimted Youtube 1080 (free) VS limited (free) Vimeo 720(max), and Youtube allowed much larger files, and image quality was better, even with YT's extra compression. My experience.

See edit in my previous post. I'm chipping away at my list of deterrents.

I see no reason to deliver anything higher than 720p for the Internet. Here's why:

The traditional Windows PC is fast becoming a niche device. If you don't believe me, just ask Steve Ballmer. He lost his job over the decline! As of February 2013, 37% of PC users have switched to a smartphone or tablet to browse the Internet (1). iOS + Android account for 45% of OS's while Windows is at 35% (2) and Tablets have replaced PCs as web browsing tool of choice (3). 720p video looks gorgeous on these mobile devices.

We as content creators need to realize that we're among the minority that needs the power of PC anymore. Everyone else is getting along fine with a tablet or phone and the trend is only growing. I also have no problems watching 720p on my PC monitor as well. I recently purchased some downloadable video training and they actually wanted to charge more for the 1080p version! I bought the 720p version and can't tell the difference on my iPad, Apple TV, or even my 15" MacBook Pro and I saved a few bucks.

I really don't see the need for anything higher than 720p for Internet delivery but that's just my opinion... written from my iPad. ;-)

(1) NPD: 37% of PC users have switched to a smartphone or tablet to browse the Internet and check Facebook
(2) WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WEB NOW THAT SMARTPHONES AND TABLETS RUN THE SHOW?
(3) Tablets replace PCs as web browsing tool of choice

~jr