I've been surprised at how much faster I can encode a webm at 1280x720 compared to 1920x1200, but... I really shouldn't be. The latter is 2.5 times the size. Maybe my feeble just mind can't handle the concept of two dimensions or something, because my intuition was that 1280x720 was more than half the area of 1920x1200 just because it's more than half the width and more than half the height.
Meanwhile, York still isn't completely sure if red seeds are a clue, so we're equally stupid.
But I finally remembered to rename a video file.