Hey thanks again for these. I didn't realize they were so big at first. I have an ssd drive, so i need all the space i can get. I tested with Darth Vader original file size @ 44mb. 1920x1080 recorded using higher bits 11k Most people generally use 1280x1024 for their backglass. I am no video - codec guy, but i wanted to compress the video and test it out to see if i could see any visual difference in quality. I downloaded free video compressor. You can of course use quick time pro and others. I immediately chopped it to half size 22mb and couldn't tell a difference at all. I tried 5 different tests all the way down to a 4mb file (My table videos are ~7mb each) I honestly couldn't tell a difference so i tested with a small audience and asked them to tell me which version looked the best, they couldn't tell a difference. Yes if you REALLY try hard, you can tell, especially experienced graphic folk. I settled for even reducing the size down to 1280x720p and the ~4mb file. This saves bandwidth, system performance, HD space etc. So Namson, I ask if you would consider in at the very least cutting your video size in half for downloading bandwidth friendliness. You could leave the rest of the quality alone for those who truly need a 1920x1080. I have only tested with this one backglass. I am ready to get the rest, but i wanted to put this out here before I go and download the rest. In the end if you make no change in size reduction, (That is fine of course) I will eventually get them all compress them, and I could host them for others who need the Lower quality files. Again, I am fairly picky, but i cannot tell usable difference in 44mb vs 4mb compressed mp4 . Thanks for your time.