1080p HD Is Coming to YouTube

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-14-2009, 12:08 PM
Manabu

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomizer

The average joe sees a bigger player and assumes it's better. If they increase the bitrate, it will go almost unnoticed by most, and they wouldn't appear to be innovating.

I don't know anyone with an screen big enough to see an 1080p youtube player. 720p is already extremely big for web.

I agree 100% with blaH. They could say that they doubled the bitrate and cal it "Super fine quality" or something. People also understand this.
11-14-2009, 02:40 PM
zalbard

You can choose the full screen playback option.
But I agree, I don't see it as necessary just yet.
11-14-2009, 02:51 PM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by proxis

why oh why would you need anything over 720p especially on youtube?

Because it's my TV's native resolution so I wont get upscaling artefacts on top of the compression artefacts

YouTube could easily go 'Premium' with this and charge extra for 1080p or more than 2GB videos, online radio services have been doing it for years.
11-15-2009, 07:49 PM
Kingcarcas

Weird, wouldn't the box need to be bigger?..........meh, i don't see the point, some non-HD vids take a while to load lately with my 10Mb pipe. I want Netflix to stream 720p over my PS3 that would be the day!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

1080p means nothing, a DVD at 480p with a good upscaler looks better than 720p torrents. bitrate (and the compression type has some effect) is all that matters, and yet no one seems to advertise that.

Cause they aren't marketing buzzwords?
11-15-2009, 08:13 PM
randomizer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingcarcas

Cause they aren't marketing buzzwords?

Exactly. Bigger numbers are better, but talking in bitrate will confuse somebody alot more than a few simple terms like 720p, 1080p, etc. I'd say most people don't even know what any of those terms mean, but like I just said, bigger is better as far as they're concerned.
11-15-2009, 09:27 PM
lalPOOO

Quote:

Originally Posted by proxis

why oh why would you need anything over 720p especially on youtube?

You have to realize the crowd you're asking (XS). Why would you need to pour liquid helium on a phenom to get a 7ghz screenshot? Because you can. :D
As for a more realistic answer to your question, because my computer monitor is 1900x1200 and I didn't buy it so I could watch 720p.
11-16-2009, 04:33 AM
Gen

Quote:

Originally Posted by lalPOOO

You have to realize the crowd you're asking (XS). Why would you need to pour liquid helium on a phenom to get a 7ghz screenshot? Because you can. :D
As for a more realistic answer to your question, because my computer monitor is 1900x1200 and I didn't buy it so I could watch 720p.

:yepp:

1080p is still better than 720p.

my videos on youtube (different user name than XS) are 720p 4Mb/s and they actually look pretty good imo.
10 minutes @4Mb is around 300MB, pretty reasonable size vs quality.
11-16-2009, 08:05 AM
Andypro1

720p is better for bitrate savings vs. quality because it's mod 16 in both directions. 1080 is not. With modern codecs, if you choose a non-mod 16 resolution your video will lose about 3-5% psnr.
11-16-2009, 08:27 AM
Gramner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andypro1

720p is better for bitrate savings vs. quality because it's mod 16 in both directions. 1080 is not. With modern codecs, if you choose a non-mod 16 resolution your video will lose about 3-5% psnr.

No you wont. The quality loss of having to encode 1/68 of the macroblocks with the last row of pixels repeated across the non-visible pixels is nowhere near a 3-5% loss in PSNR.
11-16-2009, 01:29 PM
Andypro1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gramner

No you wont. The quality loss of having to encode 1/68 of the macroblocks with the last row of pixels repeated across the non-visible pixels is nowhere near a 3-5% loss in PSNR.

That's a good point. Should we say ~1% psnr?
11-16-2009, 01:44 PM
Gramner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andypro1

That's a good point. Should we say ~1% psnr?

It's less. The non-visible pixels in a 1080p video (1920x8 pixels) corresponds to 1/136 (roughly 0.7%) of the frame, but since those pixels are just padding and not visible they are generated in such a way as to reduce the DCT coefficients and therefore requires less bitrate than average.

Aside from that, I still think it's retarded to design a digital video standard that is not mod 16 (the most common macroblock size). But that's kinda late to do anything about now.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page