Trails, I guess the answer is No.
I just haven't ventured into the world of video. My wife keeps the camcorder for videoing the kids. It's too big for me to want to pack it around while I ride or go hunting.
The video that the little point and shoot cameras produce, is coming of age and I guess there are some pretty neat new generation video cameras now available. But I haven't figured out how to take a video from horseback that doesn't seem like I bouncing all over the place. So nothing I would want to post. And watching the few seconds of video I have taken almost makes a person sea sick with all the movement.
Then I come to the size. I won't even buy a decent SLR camera. I want something that I can just slip in my shirt pocket and pull out for a quick photo. Not a camera on strap bouncing on my chest as I trot thru the woods. In fact I just hate to wear my Binos around my neck during hunting season for this reason. So I just have not taken the time to practice with posting videos.
As far as photos. I use photoshop to Clean Up
my photos. I always color correct and resize the photos before posting. On occassion I add a watermark with my name or crop out something distracting from the photo. Photoshop offers a "Save for Web" option. And I have not find anything that produces as small of a file as that option. I can take the same photo, If I save it on other programs it's almost always twice the size of the Photoshop Save for Web file. That's part of the reason I don't worry to much about posting 1024x768 photos vs the 800x600 size photo. Because my 1024 sized photo have a smaller file size than most others folks 800x600 files.
Here is an example.
This original photo straight from the camera was 649,412bytes in size. The original format was 1600x1200 If I upload this file directly to Photobucket and use photobucket to resize it to 800x600 I get a file that is now 162,487bytes in size.
The exact same photo, With color correction and resized to 1024x768 in Photoshop and then SAVED For WEB before being uploaded is now 59,297bytes.
It looks better on the screen and is actually a bigger picture on the screen, It has lost a little detail. but most folks on computer screens can not see that lost detail. It's 1/10th the file size of the original photo from the camera, and 1/3 the file size of the same photo resized using Photbucket and many other photo softwares.
The point being for Rawhide and others. Start posting your photos, But experiement a little to see what software gives you the best picture and the smallest size. There is no need to go and purchase a high end photo editing software. There are many choices of mostly free software that you can use. Find the one that is easy for you to use and gives the best compression. If you use the standard offered by photo servers suck as Photobucket. nobody is going to complain. Because that is the accepted standard. But there are products that offer better performance if you look around.
I keep the high resolution originals on my computer in case I ever want to print out a high res photo or use them in a magazine article. But for websites ( such as this one) on the internet. Low res works great. Saves folks down load time, and doesn't take up as much space on the photo servers you chose to store you photos on. At some point the photo servers will charge to you excess storage space or download bandwidth. So using lower res photos that take up less storage space will help you avoid those cost.