Maybe try uploading a 1080P / 25Mbps clip of the Oban runway and see what happens?
The last file is that. 12min 50max.
Well there’s still compression artefacts in it, so once they get compressed a second time by Vimeo, it’s going to make matters worse.
When you look at the original video file on your machine, is the top third of the runway just a solid grey mass or can you see texture there?
What is interesting is that business model most sites seem to have chosen. They offer tons of bandwidth (which one would think is the biggest issue on the internet, especially if some video goes viral) but quite limited storage (which is really cheap to provide).
I am going to stay with Vimeo, upload with the maximum possible file size (this limits uploads to c. 20 minutes running time per week for their $55/year package, which is OK on average), and maybe take advantage of the fact that one can download the full length file if one really wants to. This really surprises me, since I am sure I had previously tried that, and just got the compressed version!
Peter wrote:
What is interesting is that business model most sites seem to have chosen. They offer tons of bandwidth (which one would think is the biggest issue on the internet, especially if some video goes viral) but quite limited storage (which is really cheap to provide).
Hardly anyone self-hosts video these days, and limited storage means that you can advertise massive bandwidth limits that will never practically be reached due to the limited storage (and limited CPU – something going viral enough to become a bandwidth problem will crush the server due to insufficient CPU and/or IOPS long before bandwidth becomes a problem).
Bandwidth is also cheap, especially since the likes of Cogent showed up (the Ryanair of backhaul).
@Stevelup I have done a flight with the camera set to 50mbits/sec. The raw video is better (c. 50kt)
and it is maybe a tiny bit sharper
but I won’t bother because
I’d like to know how people manage with 4K. You can host it, for $$$, but almost nobody can watch it (even slowest 4K is 100mbits/sec), the files are huge even for today’s hard drives (if you actually keep the footage) and it is slow to edit.
I have just bought a Canon Legria G40 1080P 50FPS camcorder and really can’t see that going obsolete anytime soon, due to the above multiple reasons.
Yeah, that’s a massive amount of hassle for a relatively incremental improvement.
This Vimeo thread is an interesting illumination on this topic. They compress even 4K material to 22mbits/sec. Anyone who can produce a video which is worth watching in 4K and for which 22mbps is enough must be choosing the subject very carefully.
I have just been duplicating a load of my videos, currently on Vimeo, $50/year to remove the adverts, to Youtube.
Not because I don’t dislike Youtube and its intrusive presentation to the viewer but because it gets a whole load more SEO (google search visibility) than Vimeo, and my videos all have a mention of EuroGA, and every time I put a new one up, we got a load more new people here 
But the quality is considerably poorer on Youtube.
Vimeo:
Youtube:
