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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It's all about BW bill !

Agreed 100%. :thumbsup

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.

:2 cents: