Vimeo compression have changed. Please help change it back.

Mark Williams said:
Add this script to the end of your link code when you embed "?quality=1080p" It over-rides the adaptive streaming and plays at 1080p. Yes it is new.
Instructions from vimeo at https://vimeo.com/help/faq/sharing-v...icular-quality
Click to expand...
Mark is right, they explain this in the new thread they just opened : https://vimeo.com/forums/help/topic:280882 , and it seems like they are trying to work out this issue.

I mean, yes sure, they do want to save money, but if all the costumers leave and move to FREE youtube, I don't see what they're going to gain, so I think they're making an effort to listen.

BUT there is a MASSIVE problem, every time you try to manually play a video in high quality (let's say you asked someone to watch your video, and you specifically asked them to choose highest quality), what happens it gives you this super mega stupid message which I can't believe anyone at Vimeo thought is a good idea, even youtube don't do that! ( see picture attached) , now they have loads of angry costumers wanting to kill them :-) like imagine someone is watching a video you worked on for a year or two and this message comes up, they might think something is wrong if they are not that technical (and let's face it, most viewers are not technical).

Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 01.03.46.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is the screen grab again but the all frame... I basically tried to buffer a 1 min 4K video, it does not go away till you click the super tiny x at the right hand side of it. Screen Shot 2016-03-11 at 01.16.13.jpg
 
FAIL FAIL FAIL.

On some systems I'm checking in on switching manually to 1080p causes the video to simply get stuck and not play at all. No buffering available. Although 'sometimes' it will just start playing after like 10-minutes.

10...
Minutes...
 
what a mess. A joke if it wasn't that sad.
I disabled auto-renew for membership, I'm losing hope that they sort this out in a satisfying way.
 
Possible Workaround???

Possible Workaround???

I'd seen this thread when it started, but kinda filed it away upstairs.

Then last month, working on videos for a fairly decent client (Burger King), they complained about the video quality of screening copies.
Parts of the video were screen capture from a Retina screen, then edited in 1080. All the sections they had issues with were screen capture, so I kept scrutinizing them in Premiere.
Then I finally had an "aha!" moment and said to myself, "Self, this is the issue you read about on DVXuser..."

Told them to click on 1080, and problem solved, but only after stress, emails, extra steps, etc.

I haven't uploaded that much to Vimeo lately (until BK, I've been using my Hightail account, which is more like Dropbox now, you can play or download, have multiple versions on a page, and clients can make notes, all without them having an account), but I'm getting ready to do some big videos and want to send out links, so I finally emailed Vimeo today:

Hello- I do not want adaptive streaming.
I want to default to 1080 on my paid Plus account.
I want to control the viewing experience, not the viewer.

I have had a PAID Plus account for over seven years- are you going to force me to move to Youtube for the same viewing experience for free?
I've already had clients complain about video quality, because it "adapted" to a poor quality.
Previously, everybody knew if you waited 3-5 seconds, it would buffer and play HD.

I'm not embedding and no, I don't need to de-bug- I need 1080 default.

It's simple- you need to allow the account holder the choice, that's just good business.

Can I be any more clear? Can Vimeo accommodate my needs, or not?
Click to expand...



Brianna B. (Vimeo Support) Aug 15, 5:25 PM EDT

Hi there, Just like Netflix, Hulu, and other similar services out there, our new adaptive streaming technology adaptively selects the best streaming quality for each individual user's environment.
That said, there is a new way to set the videos embedded to your website to play in HD by default.
You can read more about how to do this here: https://vimeo.com/s/boj​ Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks for using Vimeo!
Sincerely, Brianna B.
Click to expand...

So I try dropping the names of the CEO and President (I actually own stock in IAC, Vimeo's parent company).


I know that's your automatic answer, but I'm NOT using Netflix, Hulu, or "other similar services out there." I'm using Vimeo.

And, obviously, I'm not talking about embeds, I'm talking about links to videos. Which I want control of.

Is Vimeo (all the way up to Kerry Trainor and Dae Mellencamp) saying they will never give quality control to the content creator?
Never?
Click to expand...

No reply.

So I go back into my account settings, mess around a while, and eventually... figure out that my videos that are in Channels will default to 1080.:2vrolijk_08:
I think it treats them like an embed. Plus you can custom name the Channel (ie: vimeo.com/channels/vimeosucks) and the look of the page.

I signed out of my account and tried the link to a Channel, and it's 1080!

It's a bit of a pain, and a few extra steps, and might make the random viewing DPStewart spoke of less likely. But it might be a workaround... let me know! :beer:
 
Chuck. are your project clients local to Miami? (BK is HQ'd in Miami, as an FYI for a casual reader)

My understanding is that Vimeo isn't as consistent as YouTube in delivering a given bit rate to all locales. In other words, Coconut Grove and Brickell may have it but Melbourne (as an example) may not. To get the high bit rate coverage to be geographically consistent requires a major investment into servers and chances are Vimeo's roll-out is sequentially peace meal.
 
Yes, they're viewing in Miami (and elsewhere, but mostly here). Are you in the area? (you mention my former hood, and namesake)

I didn't know Vimeo could have inconsistent results based on geography.
 
Chuck, thanks for sharing the info about channels! I have to say that personally, as the one that started this thread, I've been super disappointed from Vimeo, I think the advantage of using Vimeo is the clean interface and the fact you could customise your player a bit apart from that they are not up to the standards of 2016.

Vimeo used to be the best quality video around, I think to my eyes nowadays, Youtube is at least as good as Vimeo, and way better in streaming 4K, in fact, if you shot 4K and you upload in 4K to YouTube it will buffer faster and run smoother then 1080p on Vimeo for most viewers.

I still use Vimeo for stuff that needs a password which I think is a more elegant solution then YouTube and for some other things, but on in all, I think they are not listening, they even cancelled the thread that discussed the adaptive streaming, as it was packed with complaints which they didn't really solved.

Every time now that I watch any video on Vimeo it jumps from one resolution to another, they still haven't removed this confusing HD button but because I personally know how it work I usually click 1080p or 4K if available which then put on this stupid message saying at the top of the screen saying "If you got trouble with streaming" or something like that.

Pathetic really, but I guess that they just don't have the cash for servers and this all thing is just a way of saying they can't make it stream faster. what I don't understand is, why to charge someone money without telling him he's not going to receive what he expected?
 
The problem is that commerce always triumphs over art. Youtube has a huge revenue from monitisation/advertising that Vimeo chose not to do. However a lot of people on Youdube like to make money from their videos (amature tabloid journalism?) so there is a vast amount to money flowing round youtube that youtube get a slice of.

Vimeo has to rely on the paying subscribers rather than advertisers because it is there for "art" not naked commerce in the same way youtube is. I suspect are comparatively only a very small number of paying users thus Vimeo is going to have a much smaller income.

Also I can understand why Vimeo is doing the adaptive streaming so that it gives a better less jittery flow of video on poorer connections but for those for whom the high quality is a must, regardless of delivery speed, then it would help that Vimeo clearly explain how to do it.

Unless some one wants to seriously put a lot of money into Vimeo don't be to hard on them. Their heart's in the right place.
 
groveChuck said:
Yes, they're viewing in Miami (and elsewhere, but mostly here). Are you in the area? (you mention my former hood, and namesake)

I didn't know Vimeo could have inconsistent results based on geography.
Click to expand...

Actually, all companies do. When I got my "4K ready" broadband upgrade, 4K still didn't play well (or at all, as the video crashed) for many European and Asian made/uploaded clips because a local video will often stay local unless it gets popular globally. Without that, it may be available at the place of origination at 4K but at only 1440 at other places because the servers won't have it stored at its maximum original resolution. And they won't have it because these servers cost lots and lots of money and, if there's little or no demand for particular clip, they'd rather save space for more popular uploads.

As time goes on, servers get upgraded and multiplied, so the coverage become more uniform throughout but the speed of the rollout depends on a bunch of factors too. The gist of the whole Netflix vs. the broadband carriers debate was that Netflix wanted the local carriers to pay for the needed infrastructure to carry their 4K stream. The broadband carriers then told Netflix, "You are responsible for a far greater traffic than anyone else and we're not going to spend billions, so only you can reap the rewards". Netflix then accused them of throttling and went into the whole "net neutrality" attack via FCC. So, naturally, when the carriers were ordered by the FCC to be "neutral", they began to throttle everyone equally. Including Netflix. Netflix sort of realized that what they had achieved was the opposite of where they were aiming and began to play nicer, even reaching a deal with Comcast, their thereto biggest foe.

PS. Ya, I am in SoFla, near the Miami-Dade/Broward border.
 
jagraphics said:
... Also I can understand why Vimeo is doing the adaptive streaming so that it gives a better less jittery flow of video on poorer connections ...
Click to expand...
That is a line they maintain. Because it is partially true. But it is only a reason. The reason is, as I had mentioned above, the cost of the upgrade and a need to watch cash flow. Hypothetically speaking with hypothetical numbers - if an upgrade costs $1B, then it's not going to happen instantly but over three years at $333M per. And then the company has to decide who gets the new servers first. And that would be large metropolitan areas with a high speed broadband penetration. And then everyone else.

Plus, for a site like YouTube, it's one thing to have a Taylor Swift or a Star Wars clip available everywhere; it's another to have a business video directed at a few dozen people taking up server space where no one has interest in it.
 
DLD said:
Actually, all companies do. When I got my "4K ready" broadband upgrade, 4K still didn't play well (or at all, as the video crashed) for many European and Asian made/uploaded clips because a local video will often stay local unless it gets popular globally.
Click to expand...

AFAIK most ISP's in UK and Europe deliver 40-80 MByte/second streaming to residential customers and that or greater to most businesses. However as suggested above it is one thing having a freeway up to your door but if the rest of the roads/lines between you and the servers have bottle necks it will slow up. So regardless of the speeds locally and the available speed at, in this case , Vimeo there are a lot of bits in between that can slow things down.
 
A server has to have a given video clip at every speed it offers (if it offers it at all). In other words, if YouTube is offering 144, 240, 360, 480, 720, 1440 and 2160 specified streams, then it has to have seven copies of the same video stored at every server farm it owns. Now, multiply this by billions of clips and .... according to a quick search, it costs YouTube about six and a half billion dollars just to maintain its infrastructure annually, which is more money than it takes in via the advertising revenues.
 
Hmmm, Vzaar looks interesting, I'll have to take a look,
we have over 600 videos on Vimeo, approx 30-50 are currently embedded on clients sites,
can anyone whose made the transition comment on ease of video transfer etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top