Assassinator just mentioned this to me. Seems that Youtube upped their max resolution a few weeks back.
It now allows 4096x2304 resolution (9.4 megapixels) videos, which is a bit larger than QuadHD (3840x2160). Too bad it's only being fuelled by a 6Mbps nominal bitrate (from what I've read), which is probably better suited to 1920x1080 content (and in fact, may not be enough for some 1080p sources).
Of course, there's potentially many problems with this:
Who has such a large monitor?
What video content comes in that resolution? There's very little *true* 1080p content out there, so what's the chance of 2304p? Only reliable source I can think of is gaming/CG, but these will absolutely rape the 6Mbps bitrate, and 720p @2Mbps probably will look heaps better.
Many CPUs can't decode it without lag (especially going to slow Flash); I suspect it will choke all but the best Core 2's, but I can't seem to find reliable results
DXVA (GPU decoding) probably chokes on it too.
I guess faster connections are becoming more commonplace, so 6Mbps probably isn't too hard to stream in some parts of the world
Utterly pointless really. Why is a good question but hey, maybe some people have cameras that can record that resolution and they want to allow the original source to be uploaded even though nobody can watch it.
...
(This post was last modified: 22/07/2010 05:02 AM by S7*.)
Lol, I was thinking about posting the same thing, right after that PM to you.
Well, seems you were faster.
Spoiler for Well, here's my contribution to the discussion.:
PM logs.
Assassinator Wrote:Tried youtube 4k? It like won't play on my CoreAVC (probably bugged). Otherwise, ffmpeg-mt works just fine, but this laptop lags way goddamn hard on it (CoreAVC won't make any difference, since the laptop can't even play 1080P here. And ffmpeg-mt has supposedly gotten a bit faster lately too).
Imo the whole idea is pretty pointless. Absolutely noone has support for such a high resolution screen, absolutely noone can stream that stuff without lagging, and unless they use massive bitrates, it'll probably still be bitrate starved, thus still look blurry/gay.
Assassinator Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:But then, the general public is like, higher resolution = better quality and don't understand the rest.
But they should understand that they don't have any monitors that support even close to that. Unless wee're talking about some super rich dude with a 6 monitor eyefinity setup or something.
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Runs at 6Mbps from what I see, which is probably better for 1080p, not 2304p.
Also won't work on the 3Mbps lines in the US.
6mbps would probably look poo poo for that resolution. Even their 720 stream is 2Mbps, and that already looks poo poo (probably a combination of fast encode settings and shitty bitrate distribution).
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Maybe the various DXVA devices could play it if it doesn't use many refs.
DXVA only gives 1080p 4 ref frames (if not 3, can't really remember exactly). And this stuff is more than 4x as many pixels per frame as 1080p, so what, 1 ref frame?
I can probably CPU decode it, should try.
Shoutbox logs from yesterday, slightly edited (to make more sense, and fix some errors)...
...
#882778 Today 12:27 AM Assassinator Well, I got my encode (1080p youtube -» 480p downsize) looking decent, time to sleep.
#882777 Today 12:26 AM Assassinator Choose the "Original" setting above the "1080p"
#882776 Today 12:24 AM Assassinator If you try it, tell me how it looks, and how much bitrate they actually used
Last Edited by Assassinator
#882775 Today 12:23 AM Assassinator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0m1XmvBey8
#882774 Today 12:22 AM Assassinator Actually, I'll go do that tomorrow at uni. Though I doubt the uni's E8400s can play that stuff without lagging like hell.
#882773 Today 12:21 AM Assassinator I think there are already youtube 4k videos out now. You should try it.
#882772 Today 12:19 AM Senseito7 the worse it'll ultimately be
#882771 Today 12:19 AM Senseito7 so the better it tries to be
#882770 Today 12:19 AM Senseito7 lol
#882769 Today 12:13 AM Assassinator Thu, 00:07:29 - Assassinator
supposedly, youtube 4k is 4096 x 2304 «-- checked some other site, says 4096x3072 instead.
#882768 Today 12:11 AM Assassinator Make that 20Mb/s since youtube will probably be using super fast encoding settings to encode that stuff.
#882767 Today 12:10 AM Assassinator And unless you dump like 10+Mb/s bitrate into it, it'll still look s[o][/o]hithouse.
Last Edited by Assassinator
#882766 Today 12:09 AM Senseito7 lol, good to hear boogs
#882765 Today 12:09 AM boogschd you guys? :D
#882764 Today 12:09 AM Senseito7 Flash For the win
#882763 Today 12:09 AM boogschd but im good
#882762 Today 12:08 AM boogschd work + school is really tiring :/
#882761 Today 12:08 AM boogschd almost just got home
#882760 Today 12:07 AM Assassinator Good luck playing that without a high end quad.
#882759 Today 12:07 AM Assassinator supposedly, youtube 4k is 4096 x 2304
#882758 Today 12:06 AM Senseito7 hows it going boogs?
#882757 Today 12:05 AM boogschd oh hi guys :D
#882756 Today 12:05 AM Senseito7 worldwide availability and bandwidth limitations
#882755 Today 12:05 AM Senseito7 but the two main problems still linger
#882754 Today 12:05 AM Senseito7 it's good to see Netflix and Hulu moving VOD along
#882753 Today 12:05 AM Senseito7 it's silly
#882752 Today 12:04 AM Senseito7 YouTube 4K resolution: Do I care? >> No. >_>
#882751 Today 12:04 AM Assassinator Not to mention your computer most likely won't be able to play it either
#882750 Today 12:04 AM Assassinator But you won't be able to stream that even if you own a 100mbit fiber connection [edit: now that I think of it, you probably can, [b]IF[/b] there's a server near you, so definitely not here].
#882749 Today 12:03 AM Senseito7 boooooooooogs~~
#882748 Today 12:03 AM Assassinator There's youtube 4k now... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/youtube...-care/2277
#882747 Today 12:03 AM boogschd :D
#882746 Today 12:02 AM Senseito7 because all other video hosting sites work absolutely fine
#882745 Today 12:02 AM Senseito7 lets feed the USA more
#882744 Today 12:02 AM Senseito7 only thing I can think of is some retarded bandwidth throttling for Spain
#882743 Today 12:01 AM Assassinator lol
#882742 Today 12:01 AM Senseito7 :/
#882741 Today 12:01 AM Senseito7 it's actually faster to watch YouTube proxying through my hosting in the US
#882740 Today 12:00 AM Senseito7 on Telefonica I very, very often have buffering problems with even 480p on a 3MB connection
#882739 Yesterday 11:59 PM Assassinator I mean like [not many people] can stream that without lagging
#882738 Yesterday 11:59 PM Assassinator Why do they bother with 1080p youtube anyway?
#882737 Yesterday 11:57 PM Senseito7 lol, the cancer remains
#882736 Yesterday 11:54 PM Assassinator Hurr rage. I downscale this youtube crap from 1080 to 480 and it still looks like s[o][/o]hit. >.>
...
(This post was last modified: 22/07/2010 09:19 PM by Assassinator.)
22/07/2010 05:02 AM
ZiNgA BuRgA
Smart Alternative
Posts: 17,022.2988 Threads: 1,174
Joined: 19th Jan 2007
Reputation: -1.71391 E-Pigs: 446.1274
(22/07/2010 05:01 AM)S7* Wrote: maybe some people have cameras that can record that resolution well and they want to allow the original source to be uploaded even though nobody can watch it.
Do note that you actually need significantly more optical resolution to get a good picture at specified resolution.
In other words, a 1080p camera, generally, can't really get *true* 1080p quality. Of course, lens probably matters more etc, but, well, yeah...
And, so, the video should be downscaled (not left at original resolution).
I still see a lot of 8MP still cameras being sold, so it's going to be a long long time before consumer grade video recording equipment gets anywhere near that resolution >_>
http://www.red.com/cameras/
Those cameras can record that. But then again, if you are using that sort of camera, why would you be uploading it on youtube. You would need the budget of a huge company or just be filthy rich.
Been following red for some time now. Such amazing cameras that I will never be able to have.
(This post was last modified: 22/07/2010 05:12 AM by diego.)
Many CPUs can't decode it without lag (especially going to slow Flash); I suspect it will choke all but the best Core 2's, but I can't seem to find reliable results
I suspect it'll probably lag on all (not-overclocked) core2s besides the core2quads.
(22/07/2010 05:21 AM)Assassinator Wrote: I suspect it'll probably lag on all (not-overclocked) core2s besides the core2quads.
Does Flash effectively use all those cores?
Interesting Red cameras. Do they actually achieve that resolution though? By that, I mean that if you zoom 1:1 on a monitor, does it show all sorts of artefacts? (like most still digital cameras seem to do, or maybe all the cams I've seen are just poo poo)
By the way, camera noob here.
(This post was last modified: 22/07/2010 05:35 AM by ZiNgA BuRgA.)
(22/07/2010 05:04 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: Do note that you actually need significantly more optical resolution to get a good picture at specified resolution.
On the other hand, I'll go test out DXVA tomorrow. This laptop that I'm currently on can't DXVA.
One thing I will try (tomorrow) is to see if DXVA works with it. Currently on the laptop, and I can't really be stuffed going downstairs to open up my comp to test now.
In other words, a 1080p camera, generally, can't really get *true* 1080p quality. Of course, lens probably matters more etc, but, well, yeah...
And, so, the video should be downscaled (not left at original resolution).
Your video is probably quite "dirty" at the recorded resolution, and needs much downsizing to get it to look sharp and good. If you lets say downsize by a factor of 2, then you only get 28/22=7K resolution... which is still very good by the way.
Also, if you spent all that money buying that camera and recording at that resolution, you probably don't want youtube to butcher your video with 6Mbps bitrate. You want like ideally 2-5 times (depending on content) that much bitrate to maintain a very good video quality (and if you own that camera, you probably DO care about getting the best video quality).
(22/07/2010 05:35 AM)ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote: Does Flash effectively use all those cores?
No idea lol. Never ran into a situation where I actually needed to test that.
On the other hand, I'll go test out DXVA tomorrow. This laptop I'm currently on can't DXVA.
(This post was last modified: 22/07/2010 05:48 AM by Assassinator.)
Link 1
Void
Downloads
Find teh crap
List of Pplz
Don't Click me
![[Image: cce6aa9e-c40c-4ae7-aebe-d7780d6fc009.gif]](http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/cce6aa9e-c40c-4ae7-aebe-d7780d6fc009.gif)