Youtube releases 4096p!

2010-07-10 04:57:51

#1

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

And you still can't see a fucking difference from 720p.

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/

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.

2010-07-10 05:02:35

#2

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6696|King Of The Islands

Saw on Digg. It's not 4096p, its 4K. Big difference.

The p numeric denotes the vertical lines, ie: it would be "3072p".

Last edited by Cheez (2010-07-10 05:02:58)

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2010-07-10 05:03:32

#3

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

Cheez wrote:
Saw on Digg. It's not 4096p, its 4K. Big difference.

The p numeric denotes the vertical lines, ie: it would be "3072p".

Semantics. It's not like Australia lets you view anything more than 240p anyway.

2010-07-10 05:14:27

#4

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6696|King Of The Islands

My download limit HNNNNNN!

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2010-07-10 05:14:28

#5

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6885|UK

I don't see the point ... surely most people don't have screens that go much further than 1920x1280 (i.e. Full HD)?

2010-07-10 05:18:16

#6

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6885|UK

Wow, lol. Uses 40-60% of my (quad) CPU (compared to 1080p which uses 10-20%)

AMD Phenom II X4 940 @3.0GHz

(Saying this 'cause I noticed other comments on the video saying similar things)

2010-07-10 05:19:22

#7

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

liquidat0r wrote:
Wow, lol. Uses 40-60% of my (quad) CPU (compared to 1080p which uses 10-20%)

(Saying this 'cause I noticed other comments on the video saying similar things)

Mine goes up to about 35% (Q9300 @ 3.2Ghz)

2010-07-10 05:27:56

#8

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6432|Sydney | ♥

10% of i7930 @ 4ghz.

I wonder how much i just downloaded X_X

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2010-07-10 05:30:06

#9

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

liquidat0r wrote:
I don't see the point ... surely most people don't have screens that go much further than 1920x1280 (i.e. Full HD)?

No, not many... yet...

2010-07-10 05:32:10

#10

Airwolf: Latter Alcoholic; +287|6977|Scotland

Cheez wrote:
Saw on Digg. It's not 4096p, its 4K. Big difference.

The p numeric denotes the vertical lines, ie: it would be "3072p".

Wouldn't the count of vertical lines be 4096? Number of horizontals 3072? I'm confused.

Also fuck trying to play that video... after reading the comments I'm genuinely scared.

2010-07-10 05:34:32

#11

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6885|UK

vertical lines of resolution = horizontal scan lines

confusing, I know

2010-07-10 05:37:00

#12

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

tazz. wrote:
10% of i7930 @ 4ghz.

I wonder how much i just downloaded X_X

http://www.3outube.com/watch/?v=N0m1XmvBey8&fmt=38
Says 47MB.

2010-07-10 05:44:46

#13

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6696|King Of The Islands

Airwolf wrote:
Cheez wrote:
Saw on Digg. It's not 4096p, its 4K. Big difference.

The p numeric denotes the vertical lines, ie: it would be "3072p".
Wouldn't the count of vertical lines be 4096? Number of horizontals 3072? I'm confused.

Also fuck trying to play that video... after reading the comments I'm genuinely scared.

Measuring the vertical. Pretend it's millimetres.

Finray wrote:
tazz. wrote:
10% of i7930 @ 4ghz.

I wonder how much i just downloaded X_X
http://www.3outube.com/watch/?v=N0m1XmvBey8&fmt=38
Says 47MB.

The bitrate is anus, you can see the video glitch thanks to the awsm compression.

Last edited by Cheez (2010-07-10 05:45:52)

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2010-07-10 05:44:58

#14

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6388|Carnoustie MASSIF

As I thought.

My 3.2ghz athlon 64x2 hits 98%

2010-07-10 06:02:52

#15

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

CammRobb wrote:
As I thought.

My 3.2ghz athlon 64x2 hits 98%

5200?

2010-07-10 06:04:29

#16

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6046|Catherine Black

Cheez wrote:
Airwolf wrote:
Cheez wrote:
Saw on Digg. It's not 4096p, its 4K. Big difference.

The p numeric denotes the vertical lines, ie: it would be "3072p".
Wouldn't the count of vertical lines be 4096? Number of horizontals 3072? I'm confused.

Also fuck trying to play that video... after reading the comments I'm genuinely scared.
Measuring the vertical. Pretend it's millimetres.

Finray wrote:
tazz. wrote:
10% of i7930 @ 4ghz.

I wonder how much i just downloaded X_X
http://www.3outube.com/watch/?v=N0m1XmvBey8&fmt=38
Says 47MB.
The bitrate is anus, you can see the video glitch thanks to the awsm compression.

Yeah, there's more to video than just resolution. Shame a properly-encoded 4k file would be about 100mb/s birate.

2010-07-10 06:05:21

#17

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6388|Carnoustie MASSIF

Jaekus wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
As I thought.

My 3.2ghz athlon 64x2 hits 98%
5200?

6400.

2010-07-10 06:08:20

#18

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

CammRobb wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
CammRobb wrote:
As I thought.

My 3.2ghz athlon 64x2 hits 98%
5200?
6400.

I've got the 5200 and looked it up, realised it's about 2.6 (in my old machine that is). Doubt it could even play it if yours is at 98%

2010-07-10 06:29:41

#19

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6783|South Florida

I tried putting it at 1080 and i get about 1 frame every 15 seconds.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2010-07-10 06:35:27

#20

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

Finray wrote:
And you still can't see a fucking difference from 720p.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0m1XmvBey8

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/

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.

Bitrate aside, why would anyone want to stream youtube onto an IMAX?
They must have some server space they're really trying to fill.

2010-07-10 06:42:13

#21

Lucien: Fantasma Parastasie; +1,451|6911

Next time they release an iteration of HD just make it ONE HD. "HD ready" 720p became standard and 1080p is way underused. It sucks

2010-07-10 06:52:58

#22

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6704|Amsterdam‫

it gives me the max res of 720P. I think that is becuase im watching it with the HTML5 WEb-M player

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2010-07-10 06:54:45

#23

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6974|Riva, MD

10-15% on my Q9550 quad core. I also have Flash Player 10.1 and nVidia CUDA drivers installed though so if that actually works it's offloaded to the GPU, not sure if it's entirely or not.

2010-07-10 07:03:55

#24

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6885|UK

Jaekus wrote:
They must have some server space they're really trying to fill.

Just showcasing their potential, I suppose. Or something like that.

2010-07-10 07:04:53

#25

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5436|Sydney

liquidat0r wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
They must have some server space they're really trying to fill.
Just showcasing their potential, I suppose. Or something like that.

Yeah, and I guess if you're a web developer, being the first to do things like this is an achievement.

BF2S Forums Youtube releases 4096p!

Cheez wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Cheez wrote:

tazz. wrote:

Airwolf wrote:

Cheez wrote:

Finray wrote:

tazz. wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

Cheez wrote:

Airwolf wrote:

Cheez wrote:

Finray wrote:

tazz. wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

Finray wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Board footer