LinkedIn Post Specs for Company Videos and Case-Study Images

Prepare the asset for the decision your reader needs to make. A moving interface may need video, while a comparison between two outcomes may be clearer as an image. The checker cannot judge the business claim or approve the post. It can help separate measured file properties, published checks, and an editorial canvas so the team knows what still needs human attention.

Choose the evidence before choosing the media format

Begin with the point of the company update. If the logistics team wants to show how a dispatcher resolves a delayed delivery, the sequence of actions matters. A video can reveal the alert, the decision, and the resulting status. If the post instead reports a reduction in manual work, a carefully designed image may make the comparison easier to inspect. The format should follow the evidence rather than the team’s existing template.

Write a one-sentence claim and identify the material that supports it. For the demonstration, that might be a clean screen recording with a brief explanation of the operational change. For the image, it might be a verified baseline, a measured result, and the period being compared. Keep the original calculation available to reviewers. A sharp export cannot compensate for an unexplained denominator or an unclear comparison period.

Consider what a reader can understand without opening a larger view. The software name, customer context, and result should not require inspecting tiny interface labels. Show the relevant part of the product, or reduce the image to a short evidence-led layout. When the subject needs more explanation than one visual can carry, move the detail into accompanying copy rather than shrinking a full report to fit a feed image.

Decide whether the video and image are alternatives or separate deliverables. A company update can introduce the workflow, while a later case-study image can examine a result. Giving each a distinct brief avoids two assets that repeat the same opening claim without adding anything. Record the intended post type with the brief so a reviewer does not mistake a native image for a document cover or an advertising creative.

Keep the organic upload path separate from ads

This workflow concerns files attached through LinkedIn’s organic native post composer. It does not use Campaign Manager specifications, Live production requirements, or an integration’s upload contract. Those contexts may describe different limits and processing behavior. Identify whether the team is posting as a member or from a company Page, and name the actual route in the handoff. The checker does not sign in or inspect the publishing account.

LinkedIn’s native-video help publishes a maximum duration of fifteen minutes, a maximum size of five gigabytes, and an aspect-ratio range from 1:2.4 to 2.4:1. Those are the source of this record’s four numeric checks, with the two ratio boundaries counted separately. The landscape preparation canvas is a chosen working reference, not a claim that every native video must be landscape or use those exact pixel dimensions.

The same help page contains requirements outside this compact record, including different minimum durations for desktop and mobile uploads. It also lists further size, resolution, frame-rate, and bitrate information. A report must not imply that the four selected checks cover everything. Codec and frame-rate inspection are not performed here, and a local browser preview does not establish whether LinkedIn will process a particular export successfully.

Use the native photo guidance for an image, not the video table or an ad-design preset. LinkedIn’s photo help provides an upload-size limit and minimum dimensions, which the image record checks. Its descriptions of frame ratios and cropping are not treated as universal file-rejection rules. If you change the intended post into a paid campaign, stop using this organic record as the specification for that different job.

Make the case-study image readable before enlarging it

Design the customer-result image around a reading order. Lead with the operational outcome, show the comparison immediately below it, and place the qualification close enough that it will not be overlooked. In the logistics example, a headline about fewer manual status checks needs a visible baseline and a clear period. A giant percentage with the explanation in microscopic type is not a useful evidence-led image, however large the export becomes.

Use a 1080 by 1350 portrait canvas as a Preparation target when it helps the layout. That shape can accommodate a short headline, a simple comparison, and a compact customer context. It is not the only possible composition. A wide before-and-after interface comparison may need a landscape design, while a square result card may be sufficient when the message is brief. Keep the smallest useful amount of text in the image.

Preview at ordinary phone reading size without zooming. Can you identify what improved and for whom? Are the chart labels distinguishable, and does the note beneath them explain what was counted? If the layout fails, simplify the chart or split the communication task. Increasing dimensions can preserve detail during export, but it will not make a crowded design occupy more physical space in a reader’s hand.

Check contrast and hierarchy using the actual photograph, interface capture, or chart background. Avoid placing pale labels over a busy warehouse scene. Keep a clean version of the evidence image separate from the branded layout so the designer can revise either layer. The Image Resizer can help create a deliberate derivative, but the final small text and chart meaning still require a visual inspection.

Show the operational change without filming the whole dashboard

A useful company video is not necessarily a full-screen recording of the entire product. A dispatcher resolving one delay needs a visible alert, a clear response, and an understandable result. Capture those moments with enough surrounding interface to explain their relationship. If the relevant control is a tiny part of a wide desktop screen, plan a closer view rather than assuming a high-resolution export will make it readable on a phone.

Build the edit around cause and effect. Show the starting condition before the click that changes it, and leave the result on screen long enough to inspect. Remove loading gaps that add no information, but avoid cuts that make a process appear to happen without its necessary steps. The reviewer should be able to distinguish a real workflow demonstration from a sequence of attractive but disconnected interface shots.

Add short labels that explain why a step matters, not a second narration written across the entire screen. Keep them away from the control being demonstrated and from important status information. Use the Video Safe Zone Checker to examine edge placement as an approximate framing aid. Then inspect the native preview, because interface overlays and the real viewing experience are not validated by the media checker.

Review a silent pass for visual understanding and a sound-on pass for spoken detail. Check product terms, names, and subtitle timing in the editor. A video can meet a duration reference while still moving too quickly through the only useful result. Decide what the viewer must retain, then adjust pacing to that task. Do not treat a shorter edit as automatically better if it removes the evidence needed to understand the update.

Translate the report into specific revision decisions

Consider an example native video measuring 1920 by 1080 pixels, lasting 82 seconds, and occupying 46 decimal MB. Its aspect ratio is approximately 1.778 because width is divided by height. That lies between the record’s published ratio boundaries, and the supplied duration and size are below their maxima. The file also matches the landscape Preparation target. Those observations do not check every other requirement or establish that the video is engaging.

A portrait export measuring 1080 by 1920 has a ratio of 0.5625. It is different from the landscape target, yet still within the same published video-ratio range. Do not request a landscape conversion just to remove that target difference. Ask whether the interface and result remain clear in the chosen portrait edit. The distinction between a target comparison and a published boundary prevents unnecessary rework of an intentional layout.

For an image, a 1080 by 1350 export at 2.4 decimal MB sits above the recorded minimum dimensions and below the published size limit. A 500-pixel-wide derivative would fall below the width requirement in the selected native-photo guidance, even if it looked sharp on your monitor. Address that specific issue from the original layout. Do not confuse it with merely being below the larger editorial target.

Use the LinkedIn media check again after exporting a revision. File sizes use decimal MB in this tool; LinkedIn’s source does not spell out its byte convention, so avoid designing an export to sit exactly on a boundary. Missing duration or size means that check lacks input. A complete-looking geometry preview is not a substitute for the missing measurement or the final native review.

Turn review comments into an orderly revision list

B2B assets often collect comments from a product specialist, an account owner, and a brand reviewer. Give those comments a shared reference: the same exported file, revision identifier, and accompanying copy. Ask video reviewers to identify the moment they mean, and image reviewers to name the label or claim that needs changing. Feedback such as make it clearer is difficult to implement without knowing whether the problem is wording, framing, or evidence.

Separate factual corrections from presentation preferences. A wrong customer result must be corrected before polishing the chart color. A cropped interface control is a framing issue, while an inaccurate label is a wording issue. This distinction helps the editor make an efficient revision without changing unrelated decisions. Keep the verified business figures beside the design brief so a request to shorten the copy does not accidentally remove the qualification that makes the result meaningful.

When a reviewer requests a new aspect ratio, ask what viewing problem it solves. Converting a wide dashboard recording to portrait may require a new capture or a sequence of closer views. It is not always a simple export-setting change. Likewise, turning a portrait result image into a wide banner may require a new hierarchy. Agree on the new composition before rendering another version and expecting the same evidence to fit unchanged.

After revision, review the changed area and the neighboring material. A larger subtitle can cover a status field; a shorter image headline can leave a chart stranded without context. Recheck measurements only on the new export, not the earlier report. Keep a concise change note, such as corrected comparison period and enlarged chart labels, so the final approver can verify the intended changes without reopening every settled design decision.

Deliver media and copy as one identifiable package

Prepare a small delivery package containing the media export, approved post copy, and any separate thumbnail or subtitle material the workflow actually uses. Name each file for its role rather than relying on a folder called final. For example, dispatch-update-native-video-r04 and customer-result-post-image-r02 are distinguishable even after a colleague downloads them elsewhere. Keep source projects separate from the files intended for the native composer.

Check that the copy and image describe the same result. A revision from weekly to monthly reporting can leave the caption inconsistent with the chart even when both read smoothly in isolation. Review names, comparison periods, and units together. The Social Media Character Counter handles the separate text-measurement task; the media checker does not extract or verify claims embedded in an image or spoken inside a video.

Include the report only when its role is clear. It records observed or manually entered properties and the selected reference, not a sign-off on the customer claim. Mark any manually edited values, and retain a note when a target difference is intentional. If a colleague changes the export for easier transfer, that new file needs its own review. A renamed report attached to a different render is not reliable documentation.

Identify who will open the native composer and who will resolve a last-minute content question. A company Page update should not stall because the person with the file cannot confirm a revised customer label. Once the package is settled, place it in the Content Calendar Generator with its actual revision identity. Planning the post does not change the file or replace the final check in the destination.

Review the native result and retain a useful record

Load the intended media into the organic posting route and inspect the available preview. For video, look at the opening frame, the interface detail during the key action, and the final result. For the case-study image, check the headline, units, and qualification at normal viewing size. The local checker cannot reproduce the full native presentation or inspect the actual company account, so this step is separate from the numeric report.

If the post contains several photos, inspect the combined layout rather than assuming each independent image determines the whole view. LinkedIn’s photo help describes layout effects based on the first image and cropping in multi-photo arrangements. That is a reason to review the composition, not to label every file with a different ratio invalid. Reorder or redesign only when the actual preview loses information important to the reader.

Do the final factual check before posting. LinkedIn’s photo help states that uploaded photos cannot be edited or resized after they have been posted, so keep the editable design available and settle corrections beforehand. Do not use the browser report as proof that a chart is accurate or that a customer name is approved. Those questions belong to the people responsible for the content and the relationship.

Archive the delivered version with its caption and concise review note. Record any practical adjustment that improved the result, such as a closer screen capture or a shorter chart label, so the next update starts with useful experience. Browse the free tools directory when a different preparation task arises. A good record explains what was published and why, while leaving the source files ready for a genuine future revision.

Questions about LinkedIn Post Specs

Continue with another preparation guide

Explore another media context or review the geometry and handoff. Return to the Social Media Post Specs Checker to apply the measurements, or browse all free tools.