I think an actual HD channel would be better than actual options or flags (like the NSFW, long, brief flags etc). The reason being, that once HD is completely "the norm", the channel could easily be removed. Where as flags would likely remain, and it's just more invocation comments littering the place up.

I am using your Maybe, Perhaps, Sometimes method to split the votes on my next poll. Genius.

Should rottenseed eat a bucket of special blankfist gravy?
()Yes!
()Don't know
()Possibly no
()Probably no
()Decidedly no
()Absolutely no

Yes, an HD channel so I can filter that nonsense out.

How are better quality videos nonsense...?

Constructing polls this way sucks.
If these things are going to actually affect the site then there needs to just be a yes/no vote.
"Maybe", "I don't care" ... etc. just dilutes the 'no' votes.

Close call, but I went with "Perhaps" over "Maybe."

>> ^Sarzy:

How are better quality videos nonsense...?


Waste of bandwidth, waste of system resources, waste of time waiting for them to load. YouTube half killed television with 320x240px videos, how unnecessary this HD gimmick.

WOW. Okay. Agree to disagree.

I prefer a *HD tag.

>> ^gorillaman:

Waste of bandwidth, waste of system resources, waste of time waiting for them to load. YouTube half killed television with 320x240px videos, how unnecessary this HD gimmick.


I don't want to harp on the subject, but if you weren't using the bandwidth for something else and weren't using your system resources for anything else, isn't that sort of "wasting" them? I agree with the waste of time waiting for them to load unless you want to watch a particular video in HD. To me, watching a cat fart video is just as enjoyable in crappy, overly compressed 320x240 as it is in HD; probably more so.

I can see this being somewhat problematic. If an *HD vid goes * dead, and is replaced by something non-HD... thus my 'perhaps' vote.

As I said in my initial post - "HD videos in one channel must be legit sources and video since copyright HD stuff would be pulled."

>> ^SlipperyPete:

I can see this being somewhat problematic. If an HD vid goes dead, and is replaced by something non-HD... thus my 'perhaps' vote.

Nonetheless it amused you.
>> ^burdturgler:

Constructing polls this way sucks.
If these things are going to actually affect the site then there needs to just be a yes/no vote.
"Maybe", "I don't care" ... etc. just dilutes the 'no' votes.

I think a tag is more appropriate since it's a property of the media, like it being long or brief. It's not a description of the content, which is what channels are.

I was hoping for a "mayhaps" option. So I just went with maybe.

I think I have to abstain from voting and go for none of the above on this poll. The trend is for vids of all kinds to become better quality. And to be offered in different qualities depending on a person's bandwidth. Places like Veehd and Vimeo are quickly the norm while google and youtube have been lagging but say they'll catch up (if they want to be relevant they have to, they've been taking they're people for granted).
I don't have a strict belief on the issue, I'm just thinking about implementation within the changing times and it't relevance.
A HD tab is new and different because NSFW, LONG, and BRIEF will be constant within the life of the video having the same content. Having to relate that to quality is another dimension.
Over time all videos will be gradually increased in quality by people deading old ones and putting better quality in, So I think a channel maybe to firm for HD. HD is relative in itself. What is the benchmark? 720?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That's a good point, "HD" is kind of a moving target and more about marketing to move TVs than an actual benchmark. >> ^geo321:

I think I have to abstain from voting and go for none of the above on this poll. The trend is for vids of all kinds to become better quality. And to be offered in different qualities depending on a person's bandwidth. Places like Veehd and Vimeo are quickly the norm while google and youtube have been lagging but say they'll catch up (if they want to be relevant they have to, they've been taking they're people for granted).
I don't have a strict belief on the issue, I'm just thinking about implementation within the changing times and it't relevance.
A HD tab is new and different because NSFW, LONG, and BRIEF will be constant within the life of the video having the same content. Having to relate that to quality is another dimension.
Over time all videos will be gradually increased in quality by people deading old ones and putting better quality in, So I think a channel maybe to firm for HD. HD is relative in itself. What is the benchmark? 720?

Vimeo has an HD channel so I think it's a good idea. And here you would see the best HD videos of course.

I was thinking that we don't see the most HQ videos yet. This place isn't about movies. People who want to watch movies demand high quality. And they're given that now. But in all honesty that's not the priority of VS.

What movies and HD what?

I just want to have something where I click and it will list all HD clips VS has.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Do you consider 720 to be HD? Heaps of YouTube videos have the ability to jump to that- so I'm not sure it would have meaning. Increasingly HD seems to be an option in the video player itself.>> ^Farhad2000:

What movies and HD what?
I just want to have something where I click and it will list all HD clips VS has.

Youtube can't make up its mind because yes it leaves you the option but there is HD content from other providers. 720P is HD for all intents and purposes online.

So is this a done deal?

...

So is this HD?

Sunshowers from Stamp Films on Vimeo.

Yes, well maybe we can ad a Youtube Channel, a Spam Channel, an Attracts-Trolls Channel and the ever present Up-for-a-little-while-but-will-soon-be-Dead Channel.

My point is, HD doesn't describe the video content (not how it was filmed or is being presented). And isn't that really the point of channels.
And I doubt "eventually" everything will become HD - Seems unlikely...

An HD channel would essentially become a place where people tagged videos with high codec bit rates (less compression) which wouldn't actually constitute high definition. If the video was 720 or 1080 then it would be HD, but that's not how it would be used I don't think.

Tag preferred.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No.

HD is just a consumer level term and probably what VideoSift should stick to in aiming to be accessible. Usually it implies 720p (another consumer term!) and up, with the actual height (by which I mean width) of the resolution depending on the aspect ratio (16:9, or 16:10 or 4:3 ...).

I think it's a good idea purely for attracting a bigger audience. It's like having tags for Facebook, Buzz, Stumble. The vast majority of users don't use it or use it sparingly but it serves the same purpose of attracting the unwashed masses.

The vast majority of the content on here is usually political/comedy, and you either know it will be HD because it's an embed from a broadcast or network or you know it won't be already. Usually it doesn't matter either way, there's (relatively) very few arty sifts here that really benefit from HD. But hey, more information is never bad, I wouldn't mind knowing ahead of time, although I don't really care either way.

Seems it fits more with NSFW/long/short than with channel categories. Channels relate to a description of the content matter, the tags describe format. HD is clearly a type of format. As far as it being phased out in the future, surely it's just as easy to wipe clean the tag as it is the channels?

Oh I should probably read other people's replies before making the exact same points.

You should have to look at this <IMG SRC=http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hdtv.png>
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hdtv.png
before you go suggesting retarded things like HD channel especially when YT now is almost 50% HD if you just click the button at the bottom.