640x480 vs 320x240 videos - GoFuckYourself.com

NinjaSteve · 03-23-2008, 01:07 AM

Which size do you think would make more sales? Share your view in general, or if you want to be more specific.

1) On a gallery
2) On a blog
3) On a paysite tour

Surfing speeds are getting faster, tube sites are growing, so does this mean consumers want to see bigger images and bigger videos?

rock-reed · 03-23-2008, 03:30 AM

We only give 720 wmvHD videos now... nothing less than that

640x480 is just horrid.... its not 2002 anymore... lol!

you fuzzy little man peach

After Shock Media · 03-23-2008, 04:00 AM

I find zero reason why one can not offer a large and a small, just have the large require an extra click. I figure those that are wanting the large and have the bandwidth to pull it do not mind a fraction of a second to perform an additional click. This also allows the slower people to get their sample and my chance to get their money.

NinjaSteve · 03-23-2008, 04:59 AM

So rock-reed, are you saying that on hosted galleries you're offering 720 wmvHD?

Twisted Dave · 03-23-2008, 06:45 AM

I absolutely am 100% sure that it's not the SIZE of the videos ... but the compression ratio ...

think about it ... a VERY nice quality 320x240 video will be much better to watch than a shitty heavily compressed 640x480 video. It makes more sense.

NinjaSteve · 03-23-2008, 06:13 PM

What you said makes sense Dave. But if you're running a 1000kbps on a 320x240 but 2000kbps on a 640x320 they should have the same quality and about twice the file size so they'll take twice the time to download. I'm wondering if a 640x320 would sell better on a gallery.

tony286 · 03-23-2008, 08:15 PM

I think its more what actually happening in the video than the size. It could be hd full screen and its boring lack luster shit who cares.

Basic_man · 03-23-2008, 08:16 PM

It's all about BW bill !

Barefootsies · 03-23-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I think its more what actually happening in the video than the size. It could be hd full screen and its boring lack luster shit who cares.

Agreed 100%.

That said, we have ALWAYS (since started making content 4+ years ago) done 720/640 x 480. Even before the high speeds of today were more the exception then the norm. Now many have broadband of some kind. That has been a major selling point based on the feedback of members.

03-23-2008, 01:07 AM	#1
NinjaSteve Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 11,089	640x480 vs 320x240 videos Which size do you think would make more sales? Share your view in general, or if you want to be more specific. 1) On a gallery 2) On a blog 3) On a paysite tour Surfing speeds are getting faster, tube sites are growing, so does this mean consumers want to see bigger images and bigger videos? __________________ ...

03-23-2008, 03:30 AM	#2
rock-reed Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,892	We only give 720 wmvHD videos now... nothing less than that 640x480 is just horrid.... its not 2002 anymore... lol! you fuzzy little man peach __________________ --- Ethnic niche? Black-Asian-Latina ? Contact me and lets talk traffic. rockreed@ that thing they call the google mail When you E-mail Me, PLZZZZ make the Subject Title: >>>>>> GFY! So I do not lose you in Spam.

03-23-2008, 04:00 AM	#3
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	I find zero reason why one can not offer a large and a small, just have the large require an extra click. I figure those that are wanting the large and have the bandwidth to pull it do not mind a fraction of a second to perform an additional click. This also allows the slower people to get their sample and my chance to get their money. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

03-23-2008, 04:59 AM	#4
NinjaSteve Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 11,089	So rock-reed, are you saying that on hosted galleries you're offering 720 wmvHD? __________________ ...

03-23-2008, 06:45 AM	#5
Twisted Dave Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 3,635	I absolutely am 100% sure that it's not the SIZE of the videos ... but the compression ratio ... think about it ... a VERY nice quality 320x240 video will be much better to watch than a shitty heavily compressed 640x480 video. It makes more sense. __________________ Custom Cartoon Mascots - ICQ: 243355699, Email: [email protected] or Click Sig - 15% referrals. Send me clients, make money!

03-23-2008, 06:13 PM	#6
NinjaSteve Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 11,089	What you said makes sense Dave. But if you're running a 1000kbps on a 320x240 but 2000kbps on a 640x320 they should have the same quality and about twice the file size so they'll take twice the time to download. I'm wondering if a 640x320 would sell better on a gallery. __________________ ...

03-23-2008, 08:15 PM	#7
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I think its more what actually happening in the video than the size. It could be hd full screen and its boring lack luster shit who cares.

03-23-2008, 08:16 PM	#8
Basic_man Programming King Pin Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 27,360	It's all about BW bill ! __________________ UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress! Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !