Printable View
still poor audio it seems
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2...o-youtube.html
Quote:
We're excited to say that support for watching 1080p HD videos in full resolution is on its way. Starting next week, YouTube's HD mode will add support for viewing videos in 720p or 1080p, depending on the resolution of the original source, up from our maximum output of 720p today.
My ISP connection is gonna protest about that.
This makes me wonder .....
Why doesnt Windows 7 have the Vista movie maker software for HD resolutions?
Are they going to increase the upload size from 2GB? Some of these videos are going to be huge at 1080p. They'll also take their toll an anyone with bandwidth caps as well.
they'll probably keep the current standard as default and have some sort of config setting like iplayer. how much storage does Youtube have:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Resolution isnt everything. I bet the video quality still will be poor, too much compression.
10 minutes at 2 gigabytes is blu ray quality
No video is 2GB though. Google transcodes it when you upload, so there's even more compression. That's why it's a bad idea to upload a poor quality video, it will just end up alot worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Dav
YouTube will then destroy the Internet soon. :D
Am I the only one getting very crappy bandwidth from youtube lately? (like 30 KB/s)
Now give 1080p60 with at least twice the bitrate and we're good to go.
you can get original quality right now when adding "&hd=1' to the end of address like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odo6pDPJ1Vo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odo6pDPJ1Vo&hd=1
why oh why would you need anything over 720p especially on youtube?
I want to see any 1080p60 video yet alone on youtube. Realistically I want to see surround soundQuote:
Originally Posted by Gramner
1080 is a standard now and will be for 5-10 years and I think majority of content is like that so why would they transcode to lower format ?Quote:
Originally Posted by proxis
Storage is not an issue anymore and bandwidth is coming down
And all the isps cried out loud...
Seriously though, except for the usual suspects with proper internet like Japan or Denmark this is going to do nothing but trigger every cap there is.
Even for those who have stupid bandwidth caps this is good news since it should encourage ISPs to increase or remove the caps.Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
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.
http://www.heroestheseries.com/uploa...la-rasa-71.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Tech Dav
it would be better if they increased bitrate / encoder quality settings for 720p instead of launching yet another overcompressed big size version
It would be better if they switched from flash to *.mp4 or *.mov. How many normal PCs will be able to decode 1080p flash? I have friends who can't play back 1080p *.avi and *.mov files without stuttering due to their poor Core 2 Duos pegging out.. now add flash :eek:
what? this is pathetic... they should get their servers up to speed first before announcing something like this...
it takes forever to even load some NON hd videos depending on the server they are on...
HD videos are in MP4 format and have H264 video and AAC audio.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
Normal quality videos are in FLV format with FLV1 video and MP3 audio.
Really?
Not sure I really understand the point here. Am I missing something? What ffs is that worth watching that it must have perfect clarity?
Unless they are working on something that will compete with netfilx, I really see no point in this. :stick:
There is at least one good thing coming out of this.
ISP's or youtube will have to do something for the amount of bandwidth this will take up. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Dav
wonder if it will have anything to do with googles cloud computing gaming services they were working on. (like watch any bit of the last 2 hours of gameplay that was done using their service, then email screenshots or video clips, or save them off as how too guides for others)Quote:
Originally Posted by IFMU
And you thought youtube was slow loading now. I can't wait for this! :rolleyes:
Everyone ready for the buffering circle of doom to sit there for 10 minutes to watch a 2 minute 1080p video?
1080p, lulz
No, you're not ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Not all the time but mostly when I have time to watch them, they open ssslllooowwllyy!
One question - BT by any chance?
Meh. For real 1080p quality, a 10min video has to be something like what, 1.5 GB. People without 100mbit connections (->me<-) wouldn't really open a Youtube video and see the loading bar load a 1.5 GB video. I'd just download it as flv but then I would download the entire thing as MKV from a torrent.
so what? if you don't have the bandwidth or hardware to play 1080p clips, just watch them the old fashioned way in HQ or 720p.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
i don't see where the problem is. nothing changes for you, you just watch the clips like you did already, and everyone else with the appropriate connection is able to watch the clips in 1080p.
i'm watching the 1080p trailers at trailers.apple.com in realtime with my 16mb connection. if youtube is able to deliver an adequate speed/performance watching such clips in realtime is no problem at all.
That's why I said "meh", which means "I am not thrilled a lot about this."
i replied because you said "people without 100mbit" connections ;), but even with 10mbit connections watching 1080p streams is reasonable. so a lot of people will actually profit from this new "feature" ;)
actually upon some calculation yeah; 10gb per 2 hours, 5gb per hour, 5000/3600 * 8 makes ~10mbit, so 10mbit seems to be the lower limit for streaming 1080p content... however, I don't think that youtube servers will be able to provide you with 10mb upload all the time... that wouldn't change even if you had 100mbit of course...
im wondering about the minimum cpu requirements. or will they have it gpu accelerated?
Torrents are not "720p". The quality of a video has nothing to do with a transfer protocol. And if you are referring to x264 video, the quality completely depends on how the video was encoded. A quality 720p x264 encode will look vastly superior to any 480p upscale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
As for Youtube doing 1080p video, it will probably look like crap due to bandwidth restrictions.
Youtube has serious performance problems right now. 50 percent of the time, regardless of the quality level, it buffers longer than it plays the video.
Here, try it for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
The video streams just fine for me on my 20mbit connection. And it actually looks pretty good.
I wish youtube could be setup to run through a good filter like the ones I use with Media Player Classic Home Cinema x64. GPU acceleration would also be a nice bonus.
sounds like you agreed with me, the quality (bitrate) determines more than resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
I don't even see the buffering indicator so I don't know how much faster it is buffering than playing. However, I think it looks like rubbish for 1080p. It's just like the old 720p, but larger, and more bandwidth-heavy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
this was uploaded at blu ray quality 1080/30p , 30mbps. This is the result
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it4vwfkFarQ&hd=1
Yes, it looks like rubbish compared to a blu-ray disc @ 1080p running a full 30mbps... that much is clearly obvious. I never expected to get video as good as a blu-ray or even as good as a nicely encoded x264 Matroska movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
For what it is (a compressed video made to stream to a wide range of broadband connections).... it looks pretty good.
But compared to a true 30mbps blu-ray disc, it's quite clear that the compression highly degrades the quality.
I'm currently downloading a 1080p blu-ray video clip from that same fireworks show so I have something to compare to. Depending on the size, I may host it on my server for forum members so they can see for themselves.
dolby truehd, dts hd master audio plausible?
I suppose you are right, especially when you consider that a couple of years ago the "Numa Numa" video would have been considered typical quality (watch it again and compare to recently uploaded videos). These 1080p videos aren't too bad if you don't watch them full screen. I'm only on a 1680x1050 display as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Thats quite bad, would be so much better at 720p using the same bitrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Dav
Even WMV HD @ 720p looks much better than that, and wmv hd is rubbish...
Then 1080p is worthless for you. 720p with the same bitrate would be much better. If you dont have a 1920x1080/1200 monitor or you arent wathing it in fullscreen the ekstra resolution from 720p is just wasted, well it actually makes it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
One thing I did notice was that it actually doesn't take much longer to load than any other videos. I decided to ping au.youtube.com and it only gave me a ping of 16ms, so it looks like Google has finally moved a mirror of the content to Australia, whereas I'm pretty sure the au.youtube.com content was previously hosted in the US.
1080p will kick in only next week so this is likely only 729p even if it's uploaded at 1080pQuote:
Originally Posted by eXa
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by blaH
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
didnt know i could right click the video (not the link) and see video settings,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Dav
that clip was jumping between 500 and 6000 mbit/s mostly between 1000-2000. i think most of that video is just resolution limited, since there isnt much changing in each frame. id like to see something with more action, so youtube would try and push ever frame to the maximum and see what the quality limitations are doing
I don't know anyone with an screen big enough to see an 1080p youtube player. 720p is already extremely big for web.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
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.
You can choose the full screen playback option.
But I agree, I don't see it as necessary just yet.
Because it's my TV's native resolution so I wont get upscaling artefacts on top of the compression artefactsQuote:
Originally Posted by proxis
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.
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!
Cause they aren't marketing buzzwords?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by proxis
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by lalPOOO
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andypro1
That's a good point. Should we say ~1% psnr?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramner
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andypro1
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.