YouTube -- 1080p is so yesterday...

[Xello]

"Lastly, we managed to learn the price of the part. If you want to work on 4K DCI-compliant display, you will have to shell out 39,500 EUR or roughly 53,000 USD."

It's all relative, at one point 1080p displays of this size were that price - does that matter now?

Give it time

[STEvil]

Run these vids on a 6x 2560x1600 eyefinity setup

[Dainas]

What in god name is the point of this?! Flash already runs bad enough and grossly wastes bandwidth like nothing else. This would be cool if youtube regulated the bitrate to keep the bozos from uploading in raw. Many highly subscribed youtubers already can make 480p almost unplayble from their stupidity, cannot wait to see what catastrophe they cook up.

[Ket]

1080p on youtube sucks, hell even 480 youtube struggles with and occasionally you get lucky and manage to run 720. Before youtube starts spouting all this rubbish they need to sort out their existing problems.

[p8ntslinger676]

full uncompressed 1080p movie of 30min footage would end up how big???? too big to make 1080p ok for youtube ....

im working at a tv station right now while im in college, and a 30min clip in 1080p right now uncompressed will set you back around 8 gigs of hard drive space on our servers just for reference. they for sure dont have the bandwidth to be streaming hd video as of right now, thats why we only broadcast in 1080i cus there isnt the bandwidth. kind of sad really.

[vengance_01]

i think its really funny how youtube can give you worse quality at worse cpu usage than anything else in the world

HAHA quote for the truth!

[saaya]

why do i have a feeling that hw vendors are behind this push for huge res?
they obviously try to choke old machines and netbooks to make the idi0ts out there upgrade their hardware... to end up with the same quality video in the end...

[DavidF]

im working at a tv station right now while im in college, and a 30min clip in 1080p right now uncompressed will set you back around 8 gigs of hard drive space on our servers just for reference.

That sounds like it's still compressed. 1080p = 6.2MB per frame (at 8 bits per channel, 3 channels, no sub sampling). Even at 24 fps, 30 minutes = 43200 frames. So uncompressed is 6.2MB * 43.2 * 1000, or about 250GB. (4:2:2 YUV would drop you down to half that, and is generally regarded as uncompressed too, even though it sort of is).

[lkiller123]

quick poll, how many people bashing it have displays that can do more than 1080p.

it looks nice, it may not be blu ray good but it looks better than most things HDTV channels. sure the bit rate is also low but there is no way that they could use a higher bitrate on the current internet.

Not in the states, to be specific. The internet standard of US is worse than other developed countries in the world. For example, in HK you get 100M for 150 HKD per month, with shopping coupons.

[antiacid]

"For example, 2K reference resolution is 2048×1536 pixels, whereas 4K reference resolution is 4096×3072 pixels. "

And a 64 inch LCD monitor called the EYE-LCD6400-4K delivering a resolution of 4,096 x 2,160 pixels @ 60 Hz[7].

"New EYE-LCD6400-4K display with 64" screen diagonal and pin-sharp 4K resolution (4,096x2,160 px)"
"HD resolution EYE-LCD series of 42, 47, 57, 70 and 82-inch displays for wall or desk mounting, brilliant true HD resolution"

"Lastly, we managed to learn the price of the part. If you want to work on 4K DCI-compliant display, you will have to shell out 39,500 EUR or roughly 53,000 USD."

So not only is that monitor's price ridiculous, it also is missing about 900 pixels in one direction. The real question is however: can you stack 6 of them and use eyefinity on a 318 000$USD sized screen (which would really be 12288x4320 or 8192x6480, depending how you stack)?

[Spawne32]

looks just as terrible as any other youtube HD video

[STEvil]

That sounds like it's still compressed. 1080p = 6.2MB per frame (at 8 bits per channel, 3 channels, no sub sampling). Even at 24 fps, 30 minutes = 43200 frames. So uncompressed is 6.2MB * 43.2 * 1000, or about 250GB. (4:2:2 YUV would drop you down to half that, and is generally regarded as uncompressed too, even though it sort of is).

not even including audio :p

[Natalia]

Sweet! If only Youtubes servers could stream data faster than 3000kbps!


...

this is junk.

It is so compressed that you end up with better viewing in 1080p. I watched like in the garden and the colors just dissapear with 4K. Not just that but there is pixelation EVERYWHERE.

...just watched "Surf NYC" and 720p gave the best viewing pleasure for me. No artifacts everywhere.

Agreed - I have 2560x1600 resolutions displays, and the 1080p looks much better

[Metroid]

So not only is that monitor's price ridiculous, it also is missing about 900 pixels in one direction.

"Movie files in 2.39:1 Format"

"While the resolutions of the accepted digital cinema image standards are often referred to as 2K, at 2048 x 1080 pixels, and 4K, at 4096 x 2160 pixels, this represents the maximum number of horizontal and vertical pixels held in the image array."

"Wider aspect ratio, image formats such as 2.39:1 are described using a smaller number of active pixels in the image. A 4K movie file created with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio will contain an active pixel array of 4096 x 1714 pixels. In a similar way, a 2K movie file created with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio will contain an active pixel array of 2048 x 858 pixels."

"Under these circumstances, the higher vertical resolution of the 4K solution ensures that the cinema image quality exceeds that achievable by 1920 x 1080 pixel, High Definition home entertainment systems."

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/content/id...=1209376176809

"4K DLP Cinema Technology Digital Film Projection 4096×1716 (7029k) 2.39 48 bpp - 24 FPS"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard

The real question is however: can you stack 6 of them and use eyefinity on a 318 000$USD sized screen (which would really be 12288x4320 or 8192x6480, depending how you stack)?

Yes. It is possible.

[texasreefer]

I think its a step in the right direction, all they're doing is making improvements in HD Streaming. Google's been making great innovations with the Android OS, and in the future with their competing OS for Microsoft.

[Metroid]

This is a stupid hyped marketing initiative because at the very end videos are not been improved at all. What they are offering here is just the original video uploaded by a user and have options to decrease the quality by saving bandwidth and not by increasing the quality. So suppose you upload a 720p video, can this become a 4k video? no it cant be, so this is all nonsense. Nothing to see here.

[LaMpiR]

This is cool. Another feature to hog the bandwidth that is already low...

[unrlmth]

A scam if you ask me. 4k and 1080p look the same to me, and even 1080p on youtube isn’t as good as bluray 1080p so why don’t they fix that first.
I know there is one obvious advantage, if you have a 4096x3072 display the 4k video would look just as good as the 1080p on a 1080p screen from youtube.

Clearly, everyone has 4k screens just waiting for a moment like this. I'll wait for the price of 4K cameras to come down.. $300,000 in price.

+1

On my 1920x1200 screen I could not tell the difference between the 4k and 1080.

[RPGWiZaRD]

Honestly I think 1080p on a streaming site is more than good enough today. It wasn't that long ago before even 720p wasn't available on YouTube. I'm personally happy they are able to provide 1080p (remember how much bandwidth is used on YouTube), I'd rather see them improve performance of their network.

[Manicdan]

why cant youtube use a better quality at lower resolutions so they dont just look like utter crap.

720p can handle the same bitrate as their 4k movies, except it will look so crisp. instead every resolution is blocky

[[XC] Lead Head]

I've seen some 480p youtube videos that look beautiful while i've seen some 720p and 1080p videos that look horrible. I've also seen 720p and 1080p videos that look great as well

Remember: Garbage in Garbage out. Now yes youtube's codecs and bitrates aren't ideal, but many people upload videos with the hell compressed out of them to make them easier to upload. With HD video capable cameras being so prevalent now, you see a lot of garbage quality videos - because the people uploaded them that way.

[eXa]

Ive never seen a good 1080p video on youtube. Yes, crap in is crap out. But with youtube everything is crap out...

[richierich]

I like vimeo

[BeepBeep2]

Not in the states, to be specific. The internet standard of US is worse than other developed countries in the world. For example, in HK you get 100M for 150 HKD per month, with shopping coupons.

I can get 15Mb/s down / 768KB/s up for $55 USD per month here if I want to. I choose 8Mb/s down because it's cheaper.

I live in the "Average" US area. Nearly everyone in the US has the ability to purchase packages like this.

Thing is, 15Mb/s down is enough for near-lossless 1080p. Blu-Ray is usually ~18Mb/s.

[krogen]

I can get 15Mb/s down / 768KB/s up for $55 USD per month here if I want to. I choose 8Mb/s down because it's cheaper.

I live in the "Average" US area. Nearly everyone in the US has the ability to purchase packages like this.

Thing is, 15Mb/s down is enough for near-lossless 1080p. Blu-Ray is usually ~18Mb/s.

That's still poor in comparison, when you're talking about 50mbit connections overseas.

I don't think there are too many ISPs that provide these kinds of transfers. There's Verizon's FIOS, but nothing else that comes to my mind. And FIOS is still by no means on the national scale.