<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: YouTube Video Quality Soon Will Not Suck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:51:07 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mieoux</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-8524</link>
		<dc:creator>mieoux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-8524</guid>
		<description>YouTube has the worst video quality anywhere. I don&#039;t watch it very much because of this</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YouTube has the worst video quality anywhere. I don&#8217;t watch it very much because of this</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-7869</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-7869</guid>
		<description>There is a difference in both the video quality and the sound. i checked..wait a minute so when you upload the video both the hight quality and low quality versions are created during the conversion and the hight quality one is tucked away somewhere?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a difference in both the video quality and the sound. i checked..wait a minute so when you upload the video both the hight quality and low quality versions are created during the conversion and the hight quality one is tucked away somewhere?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-3808</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 06:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-3808</guid>
		<description>I can barely see a difference. Maybe the sound is a bit better, but the quality still sucks. I dont know how youtube got so popular. Some body could have created a site just like youtube, and had perfect video quality. Infact that can be done now, and youtube wont be so dominant anymore. 

But still, I think youtube should have high definition video quality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can barely see a difference. Maybe the sound is a bit better, but the quality still sucks. I dont know how youtube got so popular. Some body could have created a site just like youtube, and had perfect video quality. Infact that can be done now, and youtube wont be so dominant anymore. </p>
<p>But still, I think youtube should have high definition video quality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ellis</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-3298</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-3298</guid>
		<description>One more tidbit I found. If you add &amp;fmt=6 to the end of the video&#039;s link (often even ones that don&#039;t show the option to switch HQ) it will load the HQ version.  If you do &amp;fmt=18 it will load an MP4/h264 version.  There isn&#039;t always a HQ or MP4 version however.  The example below only has standard and MP4, no HQ FLV.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY&amp;fmt=18</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more tidbit I found. If you add &#038;fmt=6 to the end of the video&#8217;s link (often even ones that don&#8217;t show the option to switch HQ) it will load the HQ version.  If you do &#038;fmt=18 it will load an MP4/h264 version.  There isn&#8217;t always a HQ or MP4 version however.  The example below only has standard and MP4, no HQ FLV.</p>
<p>Example:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY&#038;fmt=18" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpMu6yyH6pY&#038;fmt=18</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ellis</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-3297</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-3297</guid>
		<description>Ok, my last comment for a while.  This isn&#039;t the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=site:youtube.com+%22Watch+this+video+in+higher+quality.%22&amp;hl=en&amp;rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS226US226&amp;start=20&amp;sa=N&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;only&lt;/a&gt; &quot;HQ&quot; video out there on Youtube. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnCVZozHTG8&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbb5CYC6JTs&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;are&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXEvwLAykbk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;some&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkF0McZKIw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;HQ&quot;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;videos&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, my last comment for a while.  This isn&#8217;t the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site:youtube.com+%22Watch+this+video+in+higher+quality.%22&#038;hl=en&#038;rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS226US226&#038;start=20&#038;sa=N" rel="nofollow">only</a> &#8220;HQ&#8221; video out there on Youtube. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnCVZozHTG8" rel="nofollow">Here</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbb5CYC6JTs" rel="nofollow">are</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXEvwLAykbk" rel="nofollow">some</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkF0McZKIw" rel="nofollow">more</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo" rel="nofollow">&#8220;HQ&#8221;</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE" rel="nofollow">videos</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ellis</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-3296</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:08:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-3296</guid>
		<description>Another note on this.  I analyzed the video stream and the codec is still &quot;Flash Video&quot; (aka Sorensen Spark) not a higher quality one like h264.

Here is the breakdown on the differences in quality for the video in the link:

Video Resolution: 448x336 (about twice as many pixels)
Video Bitrate: 628kbps
Audio Codec and Bitrate: mono MP3 96kbps (way higher quality)
Audio Sample Rate: 44khz

Video Resolution: 320x240
Video Bitrate: 315kbps
Audio Codec and Bitrate: mono MP3 8kbps
Audio Sample Rate: 22khz</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another note on this.  I analyzed the video stream and the codec is still &#8220;Flash Video&#8221; (aka Sorensen Spark) not a higher quality one like h264.</p>
<p>Here is the breakdown on the differences in quality for the video in the link:</p>
<p>Video Resolution: 448&#215;336 (about twice as many pixels)<br />
Video Bitrate: 628kbps<br />
Audio Codec and Bitrate: mono MP3 96kbps (way higher quality)<br />
Audio Sample Rate: 44khz</p>
<p>Video Resolution: 320&#215;240<br />
Video Bitrate: 315kbps<br />
Audio Codec and Bitrate: mono MP3 8kbps<br />
Audio Sample Rate: 22khz</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Ellis</title>
		<link>http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-3295</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/03/11/youtube-video-quality-soon-will-not-suck/#comment-3295</guid>
		<description>For those who don&#039;t want to write down the HQ video link at the end of the video &lt;a href=&quot;http://youtube.com/watch?v=CxW32jgzgbw&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here it is&lt;/a&gt;.

And to answer your question, no, I can&#039;t think of a place to watch lower quality video on the web.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those who don&#8217;t want to write down the HQ video link at the end of the video <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=CxW32jgzgbw" rel="nofollow">here it is</a>.</p>
<p>And to answer your question, no, I can&#8217;t think of a place to watch lower quality video on the web.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
