http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/
Youtube will be in HD next week
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f-MYl-HzNw and click on the HD button.
Youtube will be in HD next week
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f-MYl-HzNw and click on the HD button.
I love youtube comments... Its still only 720p but everyone is saying OMG 1080P IS AMAZING ITS A REVOLUTION OMG I LOVE IT ITS SO CLEAR AND CRISP
720p is just fine.
13/f/taiwan wrote:
720p is just fine.
Fixed.Red Forman wrote:
13/f/taiwan wrote:
We wish we could actually watch 1080p
i can. my tv also. point is some people are not mindless youtube drones so we dont care tbh.Lucien wrote:
Fixed.Red Forman wrote:
13/f/taiwan wrote:
We wish we could actually watch 1080p
I only use youtube for music
Youtube quality is horrible. SD sucks. 720p is decent. 1080p is actually good
In reality
Youtube quality is mediocre, SD is "well what's wrong with this?", 720p is "OH WOW THIS IS SO GOOD NEXTGEN A+", real 1080p is unheard of
In reality
Youtube quality is mediocre, SD is "well what's wrong with this?", 720p is "OH WOW THIS IS SO GOOD NEXTGEN A+", real 1080p is unheard of
No need to do all those extra things for 1080p quality. The difference is not that significant.Lucien wrote:
Fixed.Red Forman wrote:
13/f/taiwan wrote:
We wish we could actually watch 1080p
Yes it is.
Hardly, its probably transcoded about 5 times and then streamed on the internet, its not going to be nearly as good as true 1080p quality. The bitrate will probably be pretty low and quality nowhere near as good as it could beLucien wrote:
Yes it is.
that's what lucien is saying.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Hardly, its probably transcoded about 5 times and then streamed on the internet, its not going to be nearly as good as true 1080p quality. The bitrate will probably be pretty low and quality nowhere near as good as it could beLucien wrote:
Yes it is.
13/f/taiwan wrote:
No need to do all those extra things for 1080p quality. The difference is not that significant.Lucien wrote:
Fixed.Red Forman wrote:
Miggle wrote:
that's what lucien is saying.Winston_Churchill wrote:
Hardly, its probably transcoded about 5 times and then streamed on the internet, its not going to be nearly as good as true 1080p quality. The bitrate will probably be pretty low and quality nowhere near as good as it could beLucien wrote:
Yes it is.
13/f/taiwan wrote:
No need to do all those extra things for 1080p quality. The difference is not that significant.
No its not, its not going to be all that great of an improvementLucien wrote:
Yes it is.
You're missing the point, bigger is not always better. Especially in the case of youtube.
Sure, for a select few cases 1080p is going to be awesome, but that is only if:
1. The source material is of sufficiently high quality. You know, like from one of these: http://www.red.com/cameras/
2. The bitrate youtube used on the stream is high enough to make 1080 matter
3. Your computer has both the bandwidth and processing power to stream and play such video (unless, of course, the bitrate is shit -- see 2)
The problem is that 99% of the youtube market is SHIT quality to begin with (and that's not changing fast -- check the prices on that camera), youtube isn't likely to spend gobs of cash on a bit rate truly high enough, and there's a very large swath of computers out there that this simply won't work on.
Overall, this is neat, and in that 0.001% of cases will be totally killer -- but it's not anything revolutionary at all. I'd rather they stick to 720 and up bit rates myself.
HD is here - the DSLR i just bought supports it. file size is the limiter in my camera, bandwidth is the limiter in most US homes . . .
Pixels != quality.burnzz wrote:
HD is here - the DSLR i just bought supports it. file size is the limiter in my camera, bandwidth is the limiter in most US homes . . .
I have a little canon that records in 720 resolution -- but the sensor is shit, so low light, fast movement, basically anything other than a well lit chair sitting still ends up looking decidedly NOT "720 HD" quality.
Also, how much did you spend on that DSLR? 6, 7, 800 dollars? More even? The 40$ web camera rules youtube, not cash-laden geeks (myself included)
:embarrased: $2000. it's a Canon 7D. it records 1080p @ 24, 25, or 30 fps.
to be fair though, i've not tried the video - it was a secondary consideration to the 18mp sensor . . .
to be fair though, i've not tried the video - it was a secondary consideration to the 18mp sensor . . .
Last edited by burnzz (2009-11-13 15:04:31)
it could be nice for the music vidschuyskywalker wrote:
You're missing the point, bigger is not always better. Especially in the case of youtube.
Sure, for a select few cases 1080p is going to be awesome, but that is only if:
1. The source material is of sufficiently high quality. You know, like from one of these: http://www.red.com/cameras/
2. The bitrate youtube used on the stream is high enough to make 1080 matter
3. Your computer has both the bandwidth and processing power to stream and play such video (unless, of course, the bitrate is shit -- see 2)
The problem is that 99% of the youtube market is SHIT quality to begin with (and that's not changing fast -- check the prices on that camera), youtube isn't likely to spend gobs of cash on a bit rate truly high enough, and there's a very large swath of computers out there that this simply won't work on.
Overall, this is neat, and in that 0.001% of cases will be totally killer -- but it's not anything revolutionary at all. I'd rather they stick to 720 and up bit rates myself.
does it really matter for music videos?menzo wrote:
it could be nice for the music vidschuyskywalker wrote:
You're missing the point, bigger is not always better. Especially in the case of youtube.
Sure, for a select few cases 1080p is going to be awesome, but that is only if:
1. The source material is of sufficiently high quality. You know, like from one of these: http://www.red.com/cameras/
2. The bitrate youtube used on the stream is high enough to make 1080 matter
3. Your computer has both the bandwidth and processing power to stream and play such video (unless, of course, the bitrate is shit -- see 2)
The problem is that 99% of the youtube market is SHIT quality to begin with (and that's not changing fast -- check the prices on that camera), youtube isn't likely to spend gobs of cash on a bit rate truly high enough, and there's a very large swath of computers out there that this simply won't work on.
Overall, this is neat, and in that 0.001% of cases will be totally killer -- but it's not anything revolutionary at all. I'd rather they stick to 720 and up bit rates myself.
no, but that is shot with good camsMiggle wrote:
does it really matter for music videos?menzo wrote:
it could be nice for the music vidschuyskywalker wrote:
You're missing the point, bigger is not always better. Especially in the case of youtube.
Sure, for a select few cases 1080p is going to be awesome, but that is only if:
1. The source material is of sufficiently high quality. You know, like from one of these: http://www.red.com/cameras/
2. The bitrate youtube used on the stream is high enough to make 1080 matter
3. Your computer has both the bandwidth and processing power to stream and play such video (unless, of course, the bitrate is shit -- see 2)
The problem is that 99% of the youtube market is SHIT quality to begin with (and that's not changing fast -- check the prices on that camera), youtube isn't likely to spend gobs of cash on a bit rate truly high enough, and there's a very large swath of computers out there that this simply won't work on.
Overall, this is neat, and in that 0.001% of cases will be totally killer -- but it's not anything revolutionary at all. I'd rather they stick to 720 and up bit rates myself.
Movie trailers and, if your machine is 80-billion cored, Fraps captures too. Probably a few indie film makers will take advantage of it and some of the more pioneering youtube starlets will as well.menzo wrote:
it could be nice for the music vids
But, like I said, 1% of the cases.
Think about it like this: there's one official lady gaga video for poker face -- how many awful, shitty, lipsynced in the bedroom videos are there?
Should be seeing some new Irishpride movies in full HD soon...
but who watches those?chuyskywalker wrote:
Movie trailers and, if your machine is 80-billion cored, Fraps captures too. Probably a few indie film makers will take advantage of it and some of the more pioneering youtube starlets will as well.menzo wrote:
it could be nice for the music vids
But, like I said, 1% of the cases.
Think about it like this: there's one official lady gaga video for poker face -- how many awful, shitty, lipsynced in the bedroom videos are there?
Well for my clips of CoD4 I used avidemo, which is lossless. I then compressed in h264 at 8mB/s bitrate at 1280x720 and a frame rate of 50 (in before "human eye can't see more than 30).. so from capture to render it was pretty much lossless. I think I'd fall into the category of someone who could take advantage of this.
