Hey hopefully someone can help me with this. I am looking for a place to post some video projects that I have completed. What I am looking for is a uTube (not so amateurish) style venue to post some clips I have completed for some of my clients. They are short corporate video pieces (trade show loops, short digital signage clips) that I would like to showcase and be able to provide a link for potential clients. The only problem is I don't know how some of video hosting sites out there treat commercial content. I have some video on Vemio and I know they would not want industrial corporate content up with all there artisy type stuff. What I really need is a online video portfolio site...any help would be a godsend! I have a need to showcase some of my past projects but I don't want to go through the whole disc replication stuff....

Why not? I use Vimio, Veoh, OpenFilm, used to use BrightCove until they went to a
pay deal. I've even used Google video and YouTube in a pinch, but I like the better
quality of some of the others. I also will post them on my own website if needed...
that way I can make sure that the quality is good. But if you don't have a website,
as far as I know, if you own the copyright to the video you created, you can
post commercial video on many of these sites.

I already have a Vemio account, I will just use them...thanks.

The only thing amateurish about YouTube is a lot of the content you see on it. I have yet to see a video hosting/sharing solution that offers more for less.

What I find amateurish about pretty much ALL these sites, is that they want to
re-encode my video. I know EXACTLY how I want my video encoded, and as long
as I don't exceed their size limitations, I wish they'd leave it alone. But to be fair,
they ARE free sites so I really shouldn't complain at all.....I just don't like the quality
hit that re-encoding has on my video. But hey, anyone can purchase webspace pretty
cheap, and post the video exactly the way they want it encoded, so it's not really
any big deal.

What I find amateurish about pretty much ALL these sites, is that they want to re-encode my video.

I don't think there's anything amateurish about quality control and consistent standards. You gotta look at it from their perspective- what would happen if people could just upload and publish videos of any size, data rate, codec, etc.? It would become a royal mess to manage, on the back end and especially from the user's point of view.

Part of the reason YouTube continues to be so successful is precisely *because* they re-encode videos to a uniform standard; and clearly, those standards are only getting better. It's also worth noting that YouTube accepts a wide variety of formats and sizes for upload, so discriminating users actually can exercise quite a bit of control on the video quality.

Well, to be fair to me, I was saying they could control the SIZE......for example, nothing over 100 megs would be accepted. Then it would be up to the user to figure out how
to best encode for good looking video. Or even if they said, 'your video has to be under
100 megs AND has to be encoded in flash'. That would be fine too. I don't see how it
would be a 'royal pain' for them to manage if they let people upload and publish videos,
as long as they were under a certain size and encoded into a certain format. And if they are going to re encode everything, the discriminating user CANNOT exercise much control over the video quality.....not that I can see anyways. Doesn't matter HOW good the video you 'put in' to them is......it will only be as good
as their final settings. And to be honest with you.... their 'standards' that you think are getting better....
quite frankly....STINK to high heaven in my opinion. I know why they do it of course. As anyone who
encodes video for the web knows, there is a tradeoff between file size and quality. As a video producer,
I am concerned first about quality. As a company who is providing FREE webspace for anyone and everyone
who wants to upload video, an outfit like YouTube HAS to be concerned about filesize.....they have to be hosting literally billions of megs of video, even WITH their re-encoding settings.

Again, to be fair, I am NOT YouTube's target audience on this. I have a lot of experience
encoding video for the internet and actually work with several big companies
doing things like encoding broadcast quality video to send over the internet. One of my
semi recent projects involved sending video over the internet from the start of the
Iditarod, to an engineer who put it up on a satellite, TV stations would then grab it to use
during their news broadcasts. I think I had 15 stations, including a couple national cable
outlets who wanted the video. So I probably have higher standards of what web video
should look like,.....because I have seen just how good it CAN look.