1080p HD Is Coming to YouTube

[autobot]

And you thought youtube was slow loading now. I can't wait for this!

Everyone ready for the buffering circle of doom to sit there for 10 minutes to watch a 2 minute 1080p video?

[jam2k]

1080p, lulz

[Lightman]

Am I the only one getting very crappy bandwidth from youtube lately? (like 30 KB/s)

No, you're not ...
Not all the time but mostly when I have time to watch them, they open ssslllooowwllyy!

One question - BT by any chance?

[annihilat0r]

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.

[RaZz!]

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. [...]

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.
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.

[annihilat0r]

That's why I said "meh", which means "I am not thrilled a lot about this."

[RaZz!]

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"

[annihilat0r]

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...

[grimREEFER]

im wondering about the minimum cpu requirements. or will they have it gpu accelerated?

[eleeter]

1080p means nothing, a DVD at 480p with a good upscaler looks better than 720p torrents.

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.

As for Youtube doing 1080p video, it will probably look like crap due to bandwidth restrictions.

[Xenogias]

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.

[Andrew LB]

As for Youtube doing 1080p video, it will probably look like crap due to bandwidth restrictions.

Here, try it for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37

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.

[Manicdan]

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.

As for Youtube doing 1080p video, it will probably look like crap due to bandwidth restrictions.

sounds like you agreed with me, the quality (bitrate) determines more than resolution.

[randomizer]

Here, try it for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37

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.

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.

[Tech Dav]

this was uploaded at blu ray quality 1080/30p , 30mbps. This is the result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it4vwfkFarQ&hd=1

[Andrew LB]

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.

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.

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.

[junkun13]

dolby truehd, dts hd master audio plausible?

[randomizer]

For what it is (a compressed video made to stream to a wide range of broadband connections).... it looks pretty good.

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.

[eXa]

this was uploaded at blu ray quality 1080/30p , 30mbps. This is the result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it4vwfkFarQ&hd=1

Thats quite bad, would be so much better at 720p using the same bitrate.
Even WMV HD @ 720p looks much better than that, and wmv hd is rubbish...

[eXa]

These 1080p videos aren't too bad if you don't watch them full screen. I'm only on a 1680x1050 display as well.

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.

[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.

[Tech Dav]

Thats quite bad, would be so much better at 720p using the same bitrate.
Even WMV HD @ 720p looks much better than that, and wmv hd is rubbish...

1080p will kick in only next week so this is likely only 729p even if it's uploaded at 1080p

[natty]

it would be better if they increased bitrate / encoder quality settings for 720p instead of launching yet another overcompressed big size version

This

[randomizer]

This

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.

[Manicdan]

this was uploaded at blu ray quality 1080/30p , 30mbps. This is the result

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it4vwfkFarQ&hd=1

didnt know i could right click the video (not the link) and see video settings,

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