| Page 1 of 2 |
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13537
|
 Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 01:04 Post subject: YouTube announces support for 4K video resolution |
|
 |
| Quote: | Today, at VidCon 2010, YouTube announced support for what it is calling 4K videos; meaning videos shot in their original aspect ratio โall the way up to 4096p.โ Here is what YouTube had to say:
Today at the VidCon 2010 conference, we announced support for videos shot in 4K (a reference resolution of 4096 x 3072), meaning that now we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4096p. To give some perspective on the size of 4K, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet; IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors. [...] We always want videos on YouTube to be available in the highest quality possible, as creators intend. [...] Because 4K represents the highest quality of video available, there are a few limitations that you should be aware of. First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K arenโt cheap, and projectors that show videos in 4K are typically the size of a small refrigerator. And, as we mentioned, watching these videos on YouTube will require super-fast broadband
|
source
Finally i can watch youtube on my fucking massive screen 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 01:17 Post subject: |
|
|
well clearly this makes total sense for the internet
and... requires super fast broadband.. isnt that kinda understating it? i mean only jesus would have internet that fast.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 01:49 Post subject: |
|
|
And the most important thing: it requires a 4K source. Upscaling 1080p to 4K just for the sake of doing 4K doesn't quite make sense.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 02:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Why don't they try fixing shit instead of adding useless features noone will ever use?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 02:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Bleh, 4096x3072 (HXGA) is a 4:3 resolution.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 03:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 04:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Quality is really awful, as the bitrate is so hilariously low. 6445 kbit/s average bitrate for a "4K" video  (term is completely incorrect; if anything it's 2304p):
That's not to say that the 1080p version is any better:
And for a reference, a random movie I have in 1080p (not even full 1080p. 1920x800):
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | Bleh, 4096x3072 (HXGA) is a 4:3 resolution. |
More 4:3 aspect ratio is a good thing, it's better to watch than 16:9. Plus aren't all films originally shot in 4:3 and then just cropped to 16:9?
Ryzen 5 5600, ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING WIFI II, Corsair Vengeance RGB RT 32GB 3600MHz C16, MSI RTX 5070 Ti Ventus 3X OC , Corsair RMx Series RM750x. AOC AGON AG324UX - 4K 144Hz 1ms
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rofl_Mao
Posts: 3187
Location: Nederland
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 13:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah finally some decently sized videos that will fit on a cell phone's display 
| Lopin18 wrote: | I think you played too much Fallout 3, Pedo Perk acquired.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 14:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Newty182 wrote: | | inz wrote: | | Bleh, 4096x3072 (HXGA) is a 4:3 resolution. |
More 4:3 aspect ratio is a good thing, it's better to watch than 16:9. Plus aren't all films originally shot in 4:3 and then just cropped to 16:9? |
Really? I always hoped that they use anamorphic lenses to max out the available space.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 14:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed.
4:3 is impossibly limited.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 20:02 Post subject: |
|
|
good encoding is more important than 136535p, I just saw some H264 vid on youtube and it even looked good in 360p....in full screen on a 32" lcd!!
| Quote: | | PC awesome button = Uninstall! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sun, 11th Jul 2010 21:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | Indeed.
4:3 is impossibly limited. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 15:10 Post subject: |
|
|
yay now we can watch peter jackson play with his red cam and upload shiet. 
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 19:43 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 20:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Newty182 wrote: | | inz wrote: | | Bleh, 4096x3072 (HXGA) is a 4:3 resolution. |
More 4:3 aspect ratio is a good thing, it's better to watch than 16:9. Plus aren't all films originally shot in 4:3 and then just cropped to 16:9? |
No, no and no....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 20:21 Post subject: |
|
|
Shouldn't they uodate their serverpark before adding such things? At times Youtube is still really slow. And who the hell would need such a resolution on Youtube?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 20:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| RMFX wrote: | | Newty182 wrote: | | inz wrote: | | Bleh, 4096x3072 (HXGA) is a 4:3 resolution. |
More 4:3 aspect ratio is a good thing, it's better to watch than 16:9. Plus aren't all films originally shot in 4:3 and then just cropped to 16:9? |
No, no and no.... |
http://www.dvdcreation.com/2001/01_jan/features/widescreen_scam.htm
Ryzen 5 5600, ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING WIFI II, Corsair Vengeance RGB RT 32GB 3600MHz C16, MSI RTX 5070 Ti Ventus 3X OC , Corsair RMx Series RM750x. AOC AGON AG324UX - 4K 144Hz 1ms
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 20:29 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't quite get the possible benefit of this :\ So if you own a theater and a super fast connection you'll be able to stream youtube in high quality... ok... 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
๏ปฟ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 21:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that's why whenever you watch a widescreen version of a modern film compared to a 4:3 version of the movie, the 4:3 version always has the sides cropped off to fit the ratio. Not the otherway around.
Please tell me you aren't still using a 4:3 TV and/or monitor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 12th Jul 2010 22:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mister_s wrote: | | Shouldn't they update their serverpark before adding such things? At times Youtube is still really slow. And who the hell would need such a resolution on Youtube? |
Yeah, I agree.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 05:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| RMFX wrote: | | Please tell me you aren't still using a 4:3 TV and/or monitor. |
Of course he is.  Otherwise he wouldn't be making excuses for why 4:3 is better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
รber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 05:59 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | RMFX wrote: | | Please tell me you aren't still using a 4:3 TV and/or monitor. |
Of course he is. Otherwise he wouldn't be making excuses for why 4:3 is better. |
4:3 is better as is 16:9
depends on the medium it's used in.
The wire was shot in 4:3 on purpose.
Some awesome movie was shot at 16:9 on purpose.
16:9 is the preferred standard.
But in cases where 4:3 is preferred, then 4:3 looks a tonne better than 16:9
and yes, at first 16:9 was a gimmick prior to when the article was written.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:19 Post subject: |
|
|
4:3 was used in The Wire for its silly sentimental value.
So, 16:9 (or even better 2.35/2.40:1) has been gimmick prior to 2001? Go back to the console section plox.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:37 Post subject: |
|
|
no is tru. 4:3 has been awesome for eveors!
go back to your wbb... o wait...
yeah 16:9 has been a gimmick before it became hugely popular.
4:3 was a tv standard and then they started anamorphing 4:3's to fit 16:9
then real 16:9 came to home.
i'm a baby to 16:9
ican't even watch the wire
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:45 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:50 Post subject: |
|
|
like i said either you frame for 4:3 or 16:9 
both can be superior.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73374
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 13th Jul 2010 06:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Not when original content is shot at wide.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
