Well this is really impressive, but I wonder where this could possibly be applicable. My newer computer isn't capable of displaying 4k smoothly, and most screens aren't even capable of displaying this level of detail. The only place this could work out is with a 4k projector in a movie theater. Does Google have plans to stream movies to movie theaters? I'm all for it!
For the record, you don't need a ultra expensive video camera to shoot at ultra high resolutions. You can shoot in 35mm film, convert it and have ~4k video without compression.
Any chance of Google/YouTube buying us all super fast fibre-optic broadband gigabit network connections to make the most of this new feature, please? My 900 baud modem is struggling..
Not all IMAX presenters use the crappy Digital IMAX. Plus, those "two 2k resolution projectors" are projecting directly on top of each other, not side-by-side. They could have used 4k, but at the time, the cost of 4k projectors was too high.
It's good for gamers who record their games at 2560x1600 or filmmakers but would it suck YouTube's bandwidth so even people who watch in 360p would see the video not play smooth?
Higher resolution does not mean higher quality. Honestly, the 4k videos have a lot of compression artifacts that makes watching the other lower res versions, a lot more pleasing to the eye. Considering most people barely have 1080p monitors, wouldn't it be more useful in investing in better compression or higher bit rates for the current HD and SD material on YT? Right now, you're just going to get a bunch of people going "OMG, I'M WATCHING 4k BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY IT'S BETTER. IT'S BETTER THAN 1080p" and a lot of those people may not even have 1080p monitors to support any type of high resolution. It's just a waste of money.
As a YouTube user, I would much rather like to see the HD and SD videos with better quality through more optimized compression. With allowing people to upload 4k, maybe you can spare a few extra megabytes on the HD and SD encoded videos for better quality. Honestly, I would rather have a crisp and perfect quality SD video than a blocky 4k video
woooooooowww the things google will do when there's an extra 1.5 billion $ to spare. god u guys are seriously bored. do u really think just because you answered for a need that haven't even born yet we suppose to be impressed?
why are you all complaining??!! This is the first step towards something great! I cant believe how ungratefull some of you are....if you dont like it dont use it!
higher bitrate would be more appreciated than higher resolution..something like 720p LITE(which is the actual 720p) and simple 720p which would be at a higher bitrate. a setting for default video quality(i hate that i have to change the videos every time from 360p). 480p as default would be much better except for these youtube is amazing.
You've added support for 4K resolution -- which currently no commercially available monitors or televisions are capable of -- and yet you haven't even bothered to add full and proper support for row interleaving (which is supported by both LCD shutter glasses 3D systems and polarized 3D monitors) with YouTube 3D.
There are 2 things wrong with YouTube 3D's support for row interleaving:
1) It does not work in full-screen mode.
2) The interleaving is not done properly. All it does is alternate the respective lines of the left and right eye images. That creates visual artifacts.
The proper way to do interleaving is display the video at half horizontal and half vertical resolutions -- having each 2x2 screen pixel quad represent a stereoscopic pixel, and using the screen pixels that form that quad as stereoscopic subpixels (meaning just two colors per pixel quad). For the best quality in row-interleaved mode, that's what YouTube 3D should do.
And no, adding such support would NOT be difficult. I am a computer programmer, and have written programs that do such things myself.
Le snore. I hear we can also go to the Moon, but the odds of me getting to go are nil. I concur with the other users, remove the 11-minute limit, especially if we're going to start downloading YBs of information.
4K videos seemingly only use 6Mbs - I don't see a problem on most broadband connections aside from a little buffering maybe. The bigger issue: who on earth can watch these videos in 4K when most computers are too slow and the vast majority of monitors are too small for 4K?
Interesting feature, although I have to point out that 4096x3072 is NOT 4096P. It is 3072P, "P" stands for Progressive scanned VERTICAL lines. So... there's my geek rant.
For those that have 4k monitors and enough bandwidth, this is great. For those that don't have 4k monitors or the bandwidth, this is also great.
The higher the quality of the original video uploaded to YT, the better overall quality we get to see once its compressed, regardless of whether we watch in 4k, 1080p, 720p etc.
The reason a lot of "made for TV" shows nowadays use 4k cameras like the "Red One" camera, is because of better exposure latitude, more color information etc they get to work with. When editing is finished, then compressed down to broadcast standards, the results are a lot better than what they would have got if they had filmed it at the lower resolution broadcast standard to begin with.
I suspect Google have done this so that if in the near future, someone wanted to release premium content on YT, they wouldn't have to compress the original down to 1080p, only to have YouTube compress it again with their own Codecs. Only having to compress it once will minimize compression artifacts
Seriously Youtube... it's 3072p, not 4096p. In cinema-terms it's called 4k because of the horizontal resolution, and in TV-terms it's called 3072p because of the number of vertical 'lines', in other words vertical resolution. Try not to mix these up in the future :)
"We always want videos on YouTube to be available in the highest quality possible," IF that's a true statement then why doesn't goggle/Youtube use a Current x264 with all its highest quality settings activated as standard Today ?...........
indeed why doesn't goggle/Youtube even publicly acknowledge that they use older ffmpeg or even contribute back their patchs to the main codebase as is expected as a basic courtesy from goggle/Youtube using it and profiting from it's use ?
also the generic super HD 4K as defined and tested in September 2003 is 3840×2048 for 2K, and 7680×4320 for 4K so your a little low and late at 4096x3072 that's 3K NOT 4K as you state above BTW ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision "Because this format is highly experimental, NHK researchers had to build their own prototype from scratch. In the system demonstrated in September 2003, they used an array of 16 HDTV recorders to capture the 30-minute-long test footage. The camera itself was built with four 2.5 inch (64 mm) CCDs each with a resolution of only 3840 × 2048. Using two CCDs for green and one each for red and blue, they then used a spatial pixel offset method[2] to bring it to 7680 × 4320.[3] Recently, Aptina Imaging announced the introduction of a new CMOS Image sensor specifically designed for the NHK Super Hi-Vision project.[4] The system was demonstrated at Expo 2006, Aichi, Japan, the NAB 2006 and NAB 2007 conferences, Las Vegas, and at IBC 2006 and IBC 2008 ,[5] Amsterdam, Netherlands and also showing in Consumer Electronics Show 2009. A review of the NAB 2006 demo was published in a Broadcast Engineering e-newsletter."
they made this because it was pointless. You can't complain over it because its optional. It's just something funny to laugh at, since almost no computer can smoothly play a video at this resolution uncompressed. I laughed at it when I read it personally lol.
I'll second what LittleAtari said. At this point Vimeo's 1080p encoding looks to be vastly superior in terms of quality to YouTube's "4k" YouTube can't even get 1080p right as their encoders are decimating every other line, creating a half res "1080p" rather than displaying full 1080p. It's disappointing.
I uploaded a video at 4,000 pixels by 3,000 pixels and it was downscaled to 1080p. Does the source video have to be exactly 4096 x 3072 pixels to be displayed in 4K, or is this exciting new opportunity not available to all users yet?
The video I uploaded, which will hopefully be visible in 4K soon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKoG6RrLEAA
Do something sensible guys... Ur Orkut pages require a serious redesign... Improve it please... This 4k is useless as no one has that big screen at home...
Can YouTube please work on increasing the bandwidth and streaming quality available for standard 360p and regular HD videos first??? YouTube videos ALWAYS run out of buffered video!!!
Google, I can't believe you guys actually made a huge mistake in the text there. It is written that "at 4096 x 3072 pixels, 4K is nearly four times the size of 1080p", in fact it is MORE THAN 6 TIMES more pixels!
Pointless, who owns such big TFT, etc. to actually watch this in full size? Instead, better increase the video and audio quality and not just make everything bigger and bigger.
I have to agree, this it totally pointless! Youtube should focus on giving us higher bit rate on 720p/1080p and raise the 10 min. limit first! I am pretty sure, that a high bit rate 720p clip, looks better than a 4K with much compression artifacts, even on a 4K screen!
I have seen some Barco 56 inchs 4K LCD screens, and it looks impressive, but the bit rate has to be very high also.
# wtflawlnoob 3 minutes ago this is absolutly pointless. Why would u make a 4K quality video and upload it on youtube. either u live at the youtube servers or you're the boss of Intel and Nvdia Dude even hardcore gamers with Uber1337 gaming PC will get laggy pictures. WHY????? 1080P is good enough....... And think about the upload time you will have to need to wait for. 24 hours? hahaha Not needed, dump it
PLEASE use this chance to integrate an (2*1920)x1080 option, so that 3d videos could be stored as a megaframe video (or even better support dual stream storage support ;)).
so in this way 3d blu-rays are not the only way to get real stereoscopic 3d video images in 1080p.
Wow you guys are negative. I, too, would like to see longer vidoes but I do not see this as pointless. What may be nearly pointless now is a step towards advancement. I am glad to see this being experimented with.
you dont need to have like an sixty thousand dollar camera to have 4k, all you need is an hd camera and xilisoft hd video converter, change the video size to 4k, 40000 bit rate, thats all!
Like other people have said, they should implement support for 60fps (though I believe that's a flash limitation?) and videos above 10 minutes instead of such a high resolution that's only useful for 0.01% of the site's visitors if even.
Upon closer inspection, your samples are encoded poorly. Life in the Garden is nothing but an over-quantized mess of solid-color macroblocks and partitions. You can't easily see it when viewing the whole frame, because it has to be scaled down to fit on your screen. If you zoom in to a level closer to 1:1, you start to see what a mess it is.
Here is one randomly-chosen frame: http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5882/gardenstill.png
More resolution? Seems like overkill. It seems like Google is trying to beat the competition in a resolution arms race. I think what is really lacking and what would make the largest impact in online video is if Google allowed 60p or 60fps videos:
What we have is a chicken and egg problem. Nobody is releasing 4K monitors, because "oh well there's no 4K content", so Youtube offers the ability to display 4K content, and now the ISP's go running for the hills because "OMG our slow networks will actually be slow, argh, killitnow!"
Really, there are a lot of native source (eg swf vector flash, Pixar 3D, stuff made with toonboom studio, etc) that can be vector upscaled to 4K losslessly if they want to, but most won't at this time.
What youtube needs is to do is deliver a "youtube encoder" and "upload tool" in one. It's quite a painful experience to upload a 2GB video only to get a "unable to convert" message once it's done. Even if all the tool does is slice it into 10MB chunks and Youtube reassembles it on the other side, just don't waste our time uploading these Super HD videos and then say it doesn't convert.
My internet connection is good enough to download the video, but my computer processor is not. What amazes me is that I am not using an old computer. I attempted to see the video with a 24-inch iMac with Core 2 duo (released in mid 2009) and 8Gb of RAM. I thought it would be enough, but it isn't.
> That feature should be able to embedded in the website also. > Please, this is the Youtube's Blog. Can you people stop saying 1st / first / whatever it is? Stop being ridiculous as you're not the first commenter.
At this point Vimeo's 1080p encoding looks to be vastly superior in terms of quality to YouTube's "4k" YouTube can't even get 1080p right as their encoders are decimating every other line, creating a half res "1080p" rather than displaying full 1080p. It's disappointing.
Just give us a working "always play HD when possible" -setting, please. It's frustrating to use YouTube with a 100M connection when you have to increase the video quality manually every bloody time playing a new video.
What codec this you use for 4K? H.264 / RAW / else?
What Computer spec to play this 4K?
If only LCD vendor using the same density (dpi) as same as my handphone it would be make this 4K as child play. IPhone 4G has 323 dpi and if it use in 19" LCD this monitor would have 6131 diagonal pixel.
Having an 11 minute limit is really stupid and a pain for those of us uploading hour long videos. If you want to do something that will help your users then eliminate this stupid restricition. The upload size limit of 1 GB makes the 11 minute limit sheer stupidity anyhow as it's the video's file size that determines the bandwidth used and not it's length.
I agree with all the people saying how pointless 4K is for consumers. There are no video cards that can display it properly. You'd need four (4) monitors, set up 2x2 and linked together to get the effect. That's if you have two video cards supporting a MAX resolution of 2048x1536.
Even then, who would have the time to buffer a full video in 4K? At our current internet speeds, it would take all day to buffer it.
remove the 11 time limit. there is a option to shuffle and auto-play music or any video,put a option for auto-repeat! make censured music uncensored,talk to vevo about this!!! and stop it about music copy write!its really lame and one more thing,can ignore this if you want! make a section really strict!!! a normal age and a over 18 restriction!!!allow porns in the category of 18 and over.if you want. oh one more thing make the user account allow gif back ground (moving back ground)i don't see why you guys remove this option?
woa, this is soo exciting, although i cannot watch the vids on my hd computer, but i see how youtube has reached a new high. (too many pixels...., .....eyes cannot process......, noooooooooo!) :)>
I just wonder the need for this, giving non partners something like 20 minutes and hd would be a lot more appreciated than this... crappy, unused, just for the news feature... thanks, it really means a lot for us...
Pure hypocrisy. Our background image can't be bigger than 256kb but we can upload 3072p videos??
First of all, all videos are recorded at this resolution but the quality is ridiculous which is why they reduce it to 1080p.
Second, who has the time to download or upload such a video? DSL and Cable are barely catching up with the high bitrate for 1080p. Ultra Definition Television is far away.
The "Original" resolution should allow the user to upload any arbitrary size (such as PC monitor resolutions like 800x600, 1280x1024, etc) and allow the viewer to play it at its original resolution.
I'd appreciate it if you could resolve the age-old peering issues to the net of the German Telekom before introducing bigger and bigger resolutions. I have a DSL16k access - that should be more than enough for (at least normal 1080p) HD videos.
But for some reason of all the websites I use, Youtube is the only one which barely uses 10% of the available bandwidth while all the other sites are loading at full speed.
Can you *please* fix this problem? It's existed for years now and it annoys the hell out of not only me but all of your users which happen to have an access by Germany's biggest ISP.
Two things: I know that you guys are enthusiastic about your ridiculous resolutions, but shouldn't you have started with 1440p or 1600p? The largest consumer MONITORS I know of top out at approximately such, and I'm not really feeling the idea of buying a projector for this stuff.
Secondly, the 10 minute limit on videos is most likely because Youtube doesn't want people uploading full television shows or movies, not that it'll stop people. At best, it inconveniences them.
Stop trying to be a home theater, YouTube. If I wanted to watch a movie at 3072p (NOT 4096p) I'd go to a movie theater. If I wanted to watch TV on my PC I'd use a program dedicated to that. If I wanted to watch a movie at home I'd buy a DVD or Blu Ray of that movie.
Also, it's completely missing the point of the Internet, a web browser and YouTube itself. The Internet is meant to be something to share information and find out new things, not give you a home theater. A web browser is supposed to display that information and allow you to "surf" the Internet, not give you a home theater. YouTube, from what I understand, was meant to be a video sharing site where you can browse videos of anime, cartoons, games (especially upcoming releases for those of you who are anticipating a game or two), tutorials on how to do something, or whatever else I can't think of, but nope, Google just HAD to try to turn it into an online home theater.
Go on, continue wrecking your rep. It'll only lead to your downfall.
According to wikipedia: "The DCI specification for digital projectors calls for two levels of playback to be supported: 2K (2048×1080) or 2.2 MP at 24 or 48 frames per second, and 4K (4096×2160) or 8.85 MP at 24 frames per second." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
I think those compmlaining about the quality are suffering from some kind of overlay/post processing failure. If its blocky in a strange way like nothings being filtered then its probably a rendering failure. I doubt most things are spec or tested for 4k compliance. If you look at the 1080p video you'll notice even macro artifacts in those videos are smoothed over by your video renderer, if thats missing thats probably the issue..or one of the issues.
If YouTube had hardware acceleration this wouldn't be a problem displaying on my monitor (1080p monitor). I can't even play 1080p without it lagging due to this.
Please make a Java player or something that will be able to take advantage of our GPUs.
Good lord, I can just imagine how enormous these files must be. Soon you folks at YouTube are going to need your own server PLANET to house all of these videos.
well this is kind of useless, but still a very cool thing that youtube actually lets you watch streamed videos in these kind of resolutions.
unfortunately no one has a monitor that supports this kind of resolution, nor a quad screen setup.
also the bitrate is WAY WAY too low for it to actually look good. here is an imagedump of the actual resolution, in mpc-hc: http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman01/Surf_NYC_4K_resolution_.mp4_snapshot_00.34_%5B2010.07.12_09.54.47%5D.jpg
I have an event of "4K Digital Cinema Festival" in Japan in these years. http://dcexpo.jp/en/theater/4k.html And I'm also some contents of 4K platform. I believe this year's subject must include "Youtube4K" however I couldn't find how can I upload such a huge file into YouTube.
Can we just stick with 1080p and have higher bitrate audio instead? Many people don't have the hardware to play 4k pixel resolution video, but they do have the hardware to play high bitrate audio.
Instead of 4K, why don't you focus on something worthwile? extending time limits, better bit-rate on SD and 720p/1080p videos, an option to search for favorites, a player that's not crap, etc. and that's just off the top of my head.
This is actually pretty useless because most of us don't have computers with enough power to stream 4k comfortably, that and I doubt that most of YouTubers have access to a fucking 25-foot television that doubles as a monitor.
More resolution? Seems like overkill. It seems like Google is trying to beat the competition in a resolution arms race. I think what is really lacking and what would make the largest impact in online video is if Google allowed 60p or 60fps videos:
From what I've read... 6Mbps for 4k/2160p?!? Like, really? I'm serious, really?
I record and encode my *standard definition* videos in 9Mbps, whether I am using MPEG-4, XviD, or H.264. That's standard definition. And I'm using a higher bitrate than you're using for 4k? I'm speechless...
YT, unless you have some secret super efficient lossless codec that you're not sharing with the rest of the world, please ditch 4k support and work on improving your codec and/or compression. Or increase video length. Or support hardware rendering. Or allow larger file sizes. Or fix 1080p. Or let us use larger background images on channels. Or just something that would affect more than .1% of people.
I'm fully aware that I've probably missed it since it's been edited since, but I fail to see where they mention 4096p (or w/e, the number is too weird and long and it's too late/early). Furthermore, why the hell are you guys complaining? Yes, they use Adobe Flash to display their videos... because like 90% of people who visit the net have it installed. Sure they could use a Java platform, but Java's not going to be any better, Java creates an emulated platform it interacts with which when you are talking video adds a hefty processing draw. Sure they could use Html5 except most browsers aren't ready to play with this, plus it's still having kinks worked out. [And being developed].
Now onwards: No, they don't need to add 4k yet and their 4k is not 4k of good pixels, but it is better than your standard def and IMO better than 1080p on YouTube. Adding it now is obviously a move towards a future project (ie Google TV or something similar), just enjoy it and shut up.
Yes it takes ages to load, yes it takes a lot of processing power, however you are dealing with something in the order of 4.5x more pixels. Even compressed that's a huge increase. If you didn't expect either of those [Load/Power], then by god please step away from the computer.
Compression: Yes, their videos are compressed rather severely. I imagine that that's because Flash will be doing something to do with it, on top of the fact that serving a 30 MB files to 65 million people is going to get rather expensive 30 MB * 65 Mil peeps = 1.8 Petabytes of data sent. [One of Justin Biebers videos hit around this many views, and 30 MB is a realistic size for a standard def uncompressed video]. However add video compression, and you cut that down to about 8 MB [The actual size of the flv version of his One Less Lonely Girl song which had 62 mil hits], and you cut the data down to 495 Terabytes. It's 18MB in HQ[.mp4], which is 1.08 Petabytes of data. This is the reason that the videos are ad supported and compressed so heavily. Believe it or not, they are a business and are there to try and actually survive. Not to mention when you have that many connections going on, you are doing to start having serious bottlenecks with the amount of people they can serve at once. Smaller videos mean that people are out of the way quicker and thus less likely to cause someone to have to wait or get a server timeout error.
Adding a surround sound to a video will boost it's size by an incredible amount. Once again, modern technology just can't do it cheaply yet.
TL;DR version: They are a business, putting out lesser compressed high quality videos to that many people is far too expensive and impractical at this point. Further more, wait until HTML5 is ready before you advocate a move to it. Further, further more, Flash is part of the problem here but they do hold the majority of the Internet user base; deal with it for now. Also, you're complaining about them adding features? They are aware of the current limitations, don't be idiots. I mean seriously, do you think they look at the video and go "Oh man, that is like super high def, it just looks so gorgeous, their's not pixelations or anything."... Modern Net Tech simply can't do what you guys want cheaply enough to be able to break even with what it's going to cost in hosting and what they'll earn from it.
TL;DR version of the TL;DR: Stop all the freakin' hating. If you think you can do better, do it.
Until you have a $30,000 monitor, there is absolutely no reason why you should ever watch a video in 4k.
You're just watching a giant video, being scrunched down to fit on your pitiful, probably-not-even-1080p monitor, and it likely will look much better if you just watch it at a proper, native resolution to your monitor (like 720p or 1080p, or perhaps even lower).
Annoys me that people might get excited about this even though they can't even take advantage of it :\
Either they're total idiots or they've got some logically really weird scheme going on. Obviously this benefits only really rich people with 5m screens and those 4k projectors, and of course cinemas/film makers. This being the case they could very well restrict 4k use to special accounts in order to avoid delirious people hogging up the bandwidth.
Let's assume I stop seeing individual pixels with text at a 30 degree viewing angle (from between my eyes to both sides of the screen) on a 1280x800 screen. If I had a 4096 h.pixel screen with the same pixel size, I would be viewing the screen from a 81,2 degree angle.
This means that if you were watching from a 5m (16.4 ft) screen, you'd be sitting about 2.9m (9.6 ft) away (assuming you sat right at the center).
The respective viewing angle for 1080p is 43,8 degrees. This means you could be watching a 2.3m (7.6 ft) wide screen from the same 2.9m distance and still perceive the same pixel size.
So basically, people with TVs or computer screens won't benefit from 4k.
Oh, and one more thing: I hope HTML 5 and Web M and all that stuff will start to be more prevalent. Opera already supports it in its current final build. Much better than Chrome and Firefox in several aspects.
Why is youtube not hearing us in regards to the ability of being able to upload videos longer than 10:59? They keep increasing the resolution (which is great) but we want to be able to upload self created videos that are longer than 10 minutes! It seems that Youtube is less and less interested in the people that forged this site and made it what it is today in favor of this "partner" paradigm; that if you are not some goofy guy that acts like a fool on camera or some ultra hot make up guru chick with 300,000 subscribers, youtube doesn't even hear you when you speak! This is very sad! It seems the little guys that just want one thing, just one: the ability to upload videos that they created themselves that are over 10:59, are not really all that important to a company like Google/Youtube! These were the folks that put Youtube on the map of growth over the past 5 years. We are being completely squeezed out of existence and ignored! Rant over.
I don't think that anybody can run it smoothly at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Youtube has avoided being a bottleneck by allowing this new resolution, and by supporting features like this, it is only speeding up the rate at which the rest of the industry adopts this new standard.
I really wish that youtube could have a page showing a timeline, with all of the new features they would like to include (longer video lengths, 60/120 fps videos, 3D monitor support...). It's a novelty to see what Google plans to do next!
This is just a little more than POINTLESS!!!!! Gawd google, why must you screw EVERYTHING up you probably don't even read comments like this or approve them since you're too busy shoving $100 bills up your ass...
Wow, how ridiculous. I'd much prefer to have an actual comment system that works, a compression system that isn't terrible, or a video length longer than 10 minutes.
It's gonna look like shit because of the limited bitrate. A little darkness and you'll see the blocks. Just look at Big Buck Bunny at 1080p (and 720p too for that matter). If all those bits that got wasted into 1080p would've been used to encode in 720p, the outcome would've pretty much looked like a scene release.
Hey, I just watched a video off the playlist that has been taped in 4K. I have a 4 year old iMac and it played perfectly with no problems. I have Comcast high speed, too. So if you have a PC, GET A MAC. There are only 2 viruses for Macs, not 6 million like the PCs have.
Most computers today can't play this resolution of footage, and most internet connections today can't provide the required bandwidth anyway, but this is beside the point. The point is YouTube has these protocols in place as soon as possible so that people can upload 4K footage if they've got it, and not have to reduce resolution to upload footage today, only to have to re-upload it later in 4K. e.g. I'm glad that I can upload my original footage in 1080 today, even though I choose only watch in 480 or 720 due to my connection speed, but this will change once Australia gets it's planned optical fibre to home network.
4K, nice resolution but really, it is pointless unless you have a screen that supports the res natively. Otherwise watching higher than 1080 on your 1080 screen will make diagonal lines look distorted for example.
All in the efforts to get you hooked then make you pay once you can't live without it. And when you pay, incomes the hardcore censorship and it becomes a cable network. But no, you'll still think all the user submitted content gets through. Hello editor.
In fact, the internet as a whole is soon to become a grand cable network when Internet 2 comes about. As Internet 2's slogan says, 'The internet is dead'. I guess they want to 'fix' it. More like break it.
I think that you need a PC with an Intel Core i7 CPU, at least 8 GB RAM, and a high-powered HD graphics card with at least 1.5 GB graphics memory to watch 4K videos.
This requires an ultra-fast broadband connection "even on Youtube"? Try ESPECIALLY on Youtube! Even if I had the four monitors and two video cards I would need to watch 4K, I would not be masochistic enough to do this with a browser plugin!
I think it's more important to allow high speed video (50 or 60 frames per second) than allowing more than 1080p frame sizes, because computers which are able to render more than 1080 videos are rare.
indeed why doesn't goggle/Youtube even publicly acknowledge that they use older ffmpeg or even contribute back their patchs to the main codebase as is expected as a basic courtesy from goggle/Youtube/ jogos para celular using it and profiting from it's use ?
also the generic super filmes HD 4K as defined and tested in September 2003 is 3840×2048 for 2K, and 7680×4320 for 4K so your a little low and late at 4096x3072 that's 3K NOT 4K as you state above BTW ....
I don't think that anybody can run it smoothly at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Youtube has avoided being a bottleneck download de filmes by allowing this new resolution, and by supporting features like this, it is only speeding up the rate at which the rest of the industry adopts this new standard.
Protip: Upscale your vids by 2X width and height and upload as that to reduce the negative effects of Youtube's atrocious video compression which they seem to refuse to fix while having no problem introducing higher resolutions.
Whoever posted that Google is "innovating" is ignorant! Allowing viewing of higher quality video is not innovating, inventing something that can create this content for cheap, that is innovating. Most people do not have the Internet speeds, NOR the screen resolutions, NOR the graohic cards to display these videos. They affect almost noone. These are the real things you should be concentrating on:
HTML5 Better video compression More FPS Taking away the video time limit
This is a good thing, since as one commenter has mentioned, it saves people reuploading footage AFTER Google supports it only when more people can view it, but the top things are problems and complaints that many users have. This 4K thing is just an appeasing tactic, to keep the users engaged.
I think this is a great idea. I have downloaded 4K2K Videos.
It is great to crop them and look at a specific area of the Video in detail.
With new technology we need to use a new way of doing things.
Will YouTube please update the Flash Player's ability to allow:
1. A Checkbox to turn on/off "zoom". 2. Allow us to use the Mousewheel (when over the Flash Player) to control the zoom.
Then we can mouseover the Video and use the Mousewheel to zoom in on the portion of the Video we wish to concentrate on without seeing any blockiness.
Please note that 4K means 4096 and not 4000. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
We also need the QFHD (3840x2160) Format, that is exactly 4 times 1080P.
There is one new Video Camera (GC-PX10) on the market for less than a U$1000 that supports 3840x2160 (16:9).
Many newer digital Cameras have a fast still picture rate and can be used to create 4K2K Videos at frame rates from 8-30 FPS and there is always the option of making video from time-lapse photography.
It is also possible to purchase 4K2K Monitors and Projectors in the months to come. Not everyone (including me) can afford 4K2K Monitors (let alone even a decent 1920x1080 Monitor) but the world does not have to wait for them, all of us could use zoom (with a new Flash Player) to enjoy a whole new experience.
"Original" resolution is perfect for the high quality 3D movies too. I've used this option several times when I uploaded 3840x1080 resolution 3D side by side videos (3D FullHD SBS). The 3D quality was amazing and I was very impressed with this new feature. ... But some weeks ago the "original" option has disappeared from the quality list of our videos. Here you can check them: http://www.youtube.com/greenzero3d
...Today I've uploaded a new video with the same resolution and it is showing the "original" feature again. http://www.youtube.com/greenzero3d#p/u/4/OxOSvwRy2Pc
`youtube 1080i30 (59hertz)setting should also be avail since the majority of stuff is avail in this format! lot of people send you 1080i video thinking they ll be in 1080i but as we all know everything is reconverted in 1080p24!i hope you correct this since 50% use 1080i and 50% use 1080p.ty
very cool technology, but no good will advance or anything, not even where the system bandwidth of 10 M, as in Brazil. And another question is easy to transmit, even in low-streaming technology for those interested in attending or share universal experiences, but even culture. For me, I hope that YouTube, make the selection of options for resolutions to choose from all types of users.
4K no longer? All the videos I used to watch in 4K (4096x2306, etc.) are now only available in 2048x1536 resolution. Did YouTube quietly do away with 4K?
Would like to know what kind of Compression type are supported for 4K. Also would like to know how to send file embeded with 5.1 audio. Your support document says here ( http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722171 ) that channels supported are Stereo + 5.1. How can we embed stereo + 5.1 audio channels in MP4 using Mac or PC?
Follow
Now remove the 11 minute limit
ReplyDeleteAmazing.
ReplyDeleteWell this is really impressive, but I wonder where this could possibly be applicable. My newer computer isn't capable of displaying 4k smoothly, and most screens aren't even capable of displaying this level of detail. The only place this could work out is with a 4k projector in a movie theater. Does Google have plans to stream movies to movie theaters? I'm all for it!
ReplyDeleteWoot!
ReplyDeletecool
ReplyDeleteohhhh. Like for the 25 foot projectors everyone has? great idea!
ReplyDeleteFor the record, you don't need a ultra expensive video camera to shoot at ultra high resolutions. You can shoot in 35mm film, convert it and have ~4k video without compression.
ReplyDeleteThis is awesome, but runs slow on my PC. Need a new CPU, core i7 here I come!
ReplyDeleteHigh Definition Disorder. R.I.P. 480p
ReplyDeleteThat must take forever to upload a video that big at 4K 0_o
ReplyDeleteSuppose there is the "Advanced Video Upload" tool thats for 2GB; then that would not be so bad then.
Any chance of Google/YouTube buying us all super fast fibre-optic broadband gigabit network connections to make the most of this new feature, please? My 900 baud modem is struggling..
ReplyDeleteNot all IMAX presenters use the crappy Digital IMAX. Plus, those "two 2k resolution projectors" are projecting directly on top of each other, not side-by-side. They could have used 4k, but at the time, the cost of 4k projectors was too high.
ReplyDeletePointless. When no one can actually watch it at its native res.
ReplyDeleteAwesome, and we're still limited to 10 minute submissions, even on 360x240 content. Thanks, guys!
ReplyDeleteAnd you thought 1080p killed your netbook's GPU....
ReplyDeletewow, shame my connection isn't powerful engough
ReplyDelete1st! Wow awesome will this be the new quality standard in a few centuries? :)
ReplyDeleteSweet! :D Can't wait! ;)
ReplyDeleteFirst!!! WoW that will be awesome!
ReplyDeleteReally, my eyes couldn't hold that screen. Better to not watch it directly.
ReplyDeletewow! that is crazy :)
ReplyDeletetks Youtube for keeping innovating!
Wow, i think this will be great! Cinema quality right on youtube!
ReplyDeleteI really like the amount of effort being put into quality. Can we get 60 FPS videos next please? :\
ReplyDeleteIt's good for gamers who record their games at 2560x1600 or filmmakers but would it suck YouTube's bandwidth so even people who watch in 360p would see the video not play smooth?
ReplyDeleteAnd you thought 1080p was rough on your netbook's GPU...
ReplyDeleteOh my lord, you'll need a kickass computer to display that size as well!
ReplyDeleteHoly Balls
ReplyDeleteDear YouTube,
ReplyDeletePlease increase the horribly limiting runtime limit on uploads and concentrate later on offering formats that no one will be able to view.
Sincerely,
The director of a 12:30min film that he'd really like to put on YouTube.
Um............. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteHigher resolution does not mean higher quality. Honestly, the 4k videos have a lot of compression artifacts that makes watching the other lower res versions, a lot more pleasing to the eye. Considering most people barely have 1080p monitors, wouldn't it be more useful in investing in better compression or higher bit rates for the current HD and SD material on YT? Right now, you're just going to get a bunch of people going "OMG, I'M WATCHING 4k BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY IT'S BETTER. IT'S BETTER THAN 1080p" and a lot of those people may not even have 1080p monitors to support any type of high resolution. It's just a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteAs a YouTube user, I would much rather like to see the HD and SD videos with better quality through more optimized compression. With allowing people to upload 4k, maybe you can spare a few extra megabytes on the HD and SD encoded videos for better quality. Honestly, I would rather have a crisp and perfect quality SD video than a blocky 4k video
woooooooowww the things google will do when there's an extra 1.5 billion $ to spare.
ReplyDeletegod u guys are seriously bored.
do u really think just because you answered for a need that haven't even born yet we suppose to be impressed?
4K video streams over Google fiber: is Google in an arms race with itself?
ReplyDeletewhy are you all complaining??!! This is the first step towards something great! I cant believe how ungratefull some of you are....if you dont like it dont use it!
ReplyDeleteWow, my grandkids will be excited...when I have them in 30 years...............
ReplyDeletehigher bitrate would be more appreciated than higher resolution..something like 720p LITE(which is the actual 720p) and simple 720p which would be at a higher bitrate. a setting for default video quality(i hate that i have to change the videos every time from 360p). 480p as default would be much better
ReplyDeleteexcept for these youtube is amazing.
The number before "p" denotes number of horizontal scan lines in a landscape orientation. It is most correctly called 3072p by convention.
ReplyDeleteAlso, 4096x3072 is nearly six times the size of 1920x1080, not four.
I hope you did not divide 4096 by 1080 to get your number.
Because Youtube can already buffer 1080p! /sarcasm
ReplyDelete....*sigh*
Wow, although it was a little laggy, it looked very nice on my monitor.
ReplyDelete"At 4096 x 3072 pixels, 4K is nearly four times the size of 1080p."
ReplyDelete1920*1080=2,073,600
4096*3072=12,582,912
12,582,912/2,073,600=6.07 times the size.
"we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4096p"
4096p is 7282×4096.
This is RIDICULOUS.
ReplyDeleteYou've added support for 4K resolution -- which currently no commercially available monitors or televisions are capable of -- and yet you haven't even bothered to add full and proper support for row interleaving (which is supported by both LCD shutter glasses 3D systems and polarized 3D monitors) with YouTube 3D.
There are 2 things wrong with YouTube 3D's support for row interleaving:
1) It does not work in full-screen mode.
2) The interleaving is not done properly. All it does is alternate the respective lines of the left and right eye images. That creates visual artifacts.
The proper way to do interleaving is display the video at half horizontal and half vertical resolutions -- having each 2x2 screen pixel quad represent a stereoscopic pixel, and using the screen pixels that form that quad as stereoscopic subpixels (meaning just two colors per pixel quad). For the best quality in row-interleaved mode, that's what YouTube 3D should do.
And no, adding such support would NOT be difficult. I am a computer programmer, and have written programs that do such things myself.
Hum, Ramesh Sarukkai, better proof-read the post, plenty of wrong numbers there (check DCI specification)
ReplyDeleteThis is BS I can't even play videos on 720p smoothly they should make all videos html5 instead of this useless crap
ReplyDeleteI don't anyone who uses 25 foot monitors to watch youtube videos.
ReplyDeleteLe snore. I hear we can also go to the Moon, but the odds of me getting to go are nil. I concur with the other users, remove the 11-minute limit, especially if we're going to start downloading YBs of information.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to see this with HTML5
ReplyDeleteThis is stupid. If you had the bandwidth to do this you should remove that 10 minute limit.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a great thing.
ReplyDeleteI just want to be able to play 1080p on my linux box... Google can you just switch to HTML5 already?
ReplyDelete4K videos seemingly only use 6Mbs - I don't see a problem on most broadband connections aside from a little buffering maybe. The bigger issue: who on earth can watch these videos in 4K when most computers are too slow and the vast majority of monitors are too small for 4K?
ReplyDeleteInteresting feature, although I have to point out that 4096x3072 is NOT 4096P. It is 3072P, "P" stands for Progressive scanned VERTICAL lines. So... there's my geek rant.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this be 3072p, not 4096p?
ReplyDeleteFor those that have 4k monitors and enough bandwidth, this is great.
ReplyDeleteFor those that don't have 4k monitors or the bandwidth, this is also great.
The higher the quality of the original video uploaded to YT, the better overall quality we get to see once its compressed, regardless of whether we watch in 4k, 1080p, 720p etc.
The reason a lot of "made for TV" shows nowadays use 4k cameras like the "Red One" camera, is because of better exposure latitude, more color information etc they get to work with.
When editing is finished, then compressed down to broadcast standards, the results are a lot better than what they would have got if they had filmed it at the lower resolution broadcast standard to begin with.
I suspect Google have done this so that if in the near future, someone wanted to release premium content on YT, they wouldn't have to compress the original down to 1080p, only to have YouTube compress it again with their own Codecs.
Only having to compress it once will minimize compression artifacts
Cheers
James
Seriously Youtube... it's 3072p, not 4096p. In cinema-terms it's called 4k because of the horizontal resolution, and in TV-terms it's called 3072p because of the number of vertical 'lines', in other words vertical resolution. Try not to mix these up in the future :)
ReplyDelete"We always want videos on YouTube to be available in the highest quality possible,"
ReplyDeleteIF that's a true statement then why doesn't goggle/Youtube use a Current x264 with all its highest quality settings activated as standard Today ?...........
indeed why doesn't goggle/Youtube even publicly acknowledge that they use older ffmpeg or even contribute back their patchs to the main codebase as is expected as a basic courtesy from goggle/Youtube using it and profiting from it's use ?
also the generic super HD 4K as defined and tested in September 2003 is 3840×2048 for 2K, and 7680×4320 for 4K so your a little low and late at 4096x3072 that's 3K NOT 4K as you state above BTW ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision
"Because this format is highly experimental, NHK researchers had to build their own prototype from scratch. In the system demonstrated in September 2003, they used an array of 16 HDTV recorders to capture the 30-minute-long test footage.
The camera itself was built with four 2.5 inch (64 mm) CCDs each with a resolution of only 3840 × 2048. Using two CCDs for green and one each for red and blue, they then used a spatial pixel offset method[2] to bring it to 7680 × 4320.[3]
Recently, Aptina Imaging announced the introduction of a new CMOS Image sensor specifically designed for the NHK Super Hi-Vision project.[4]
The system was demonstrated at Expo 2006, Aichi, Japan, the NAB 2006 and NAB 2007 conferences, Las Vegas, and at IBC 2006 and IBC 2008 ,[5] Amsterdam, Netherlands and also showing in Consumer Electronics Show 2009. A review of the NAB 2006 demo was published in a Broadcast Engineering e-newsletter."
they made this because it was pointless. You can't complain over it because its optional. It's just something funny to laugh at, since almost no computer can smoothly play a video at this resolution uncompressed. I laughed at it when I read it personally lol.
ReplyDeleteI'll second what LittleAtari said.
ReplyDeleteAt this point Vimeo's 1080p encoding looks to be vastly superior in terms of quality to YouTube's "4k"
YouTube can't even get 1080p right as their encoders are decimating every other line, creating a half res "1080p" rather than displaying full 1080p.
It's disappointing.
I uploaded a video at 4,000 pixels by 3,000 pixels and it was downscaled to 1080p. Does the source video have to be exactly 4096 x 3072 pixels to be displayed in 4K, or is this exciting new opportunity not available to all users yet?
ReplyDeleteThe video I uploaded, which will hopefully be visible in 4K soon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKoG6RrLEAA
lol..these guys are crazy
ReplyDeleteDo something sensible guys... Ur Orkut pages require a serious redesign... Improve it please... This 4k is useless as no one has that big screen at home...
ReplyDeleteMaby Eyefinity... with 1080p Home Projectors?
ReplyDeleteThe 4K 4096 x 3072 pixels not HD , its 4:3
ReplyDeleteit should be 4096 x 2304 pixels,its HD 16:9
i think this is because of the Google TV
Am I Right.
Really 4096 x 3072? I could only find videos with 4096 x 2304 pixels.
ReplyDeleteCan YouTube please work on increasing the bandwidth and streaming quality available for standard 360p and regular HD videos first??? YouTube videos ALWAYS run out of buffered video!!!
ReplyDeleteGoogle, I can't believe you guys actually made a huge mistake in the text there. It is written that "at 4096 x 3072 pixels, 4K is nearly four times the size of 1080p", in fact it is MORE THAN 6 TIMES more pixels!
ReplyDeleteSee: 1920x1080= 2,073,600 ; 4096x3072= 12,582,912 ; that's 12 MEGA PIXELS!
Pointless, who owns such big TFT, etc. to actually watch this in full size? Instead, better increase the video and audio quality and not just make everything bigger and bigger.
ReplyDeleteWould rather have 30 min video limit and 60fps support instead of this. 1080p is already way more than enough.
ReplyDeleteStupid, stupid, stupid. Who can view these files, and on what monitor could they view them? This is just really, really stupid.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Why on Earth are you calling it 4096p?!?
4096 is the first number sequence in 4096 x 3072.
So it should be called 3072p just like 1920 x 1080 is called 1080p, or 1280 x 720 is called 720p, and so on...
You don't get to reorder the naming format just to make it sound bigger than it is!
Plus, 4096 x 3072 is a 4:3 (1.33) aspect ratio, not 16:9. So why do these videos come up in widescreen then?
The 4096 x 3072 must be an incorrect accounting of these videos, as they are clearly not stretched to fit the screen.
4096 x 2,304 would be a more standard 16:9 (1.77) aspect ratio.
So, which is it; 4096 x 3072 or 4096 x 2,304? (or something else altogether)
Regardless, I'm simply picking nits with these points.
It's ultimately still a really stupid idea, no matter what you call it or it's true resolution.
I have to agree, this it totally pointless!
ReplyDeleteYoutube should focus on giving us higher bit rate on 720p/1080p and raise the 10 min. limit first!
I am pretty sure, that a high bit rate 720p clip, looks better than a 4K with much compression artifacts, even on a 4K screen!
I have seen some Barco 56 inchs 4K LCD screens, and it looks impressive, but the bit rate has to be very high also.
Thomas H. - http://www.thhe.dk
IT lagged my pc , it almoust crashed it . :(
ReplyDeleteTechnically this isn't 4096p, it's 3072p.
ReplyDelete#
ReplyDeletewtflawlnoob
3 minutes ago
this is absolutly pointless. Why would u make a 4K quality video and upload it on youtube. either u live at the youtube servers or you're the boss of Intel and Nvdia
Dude even hardcore gamers with Uber1337 gaming PC will get laggy pictures.
WHY?????
1080P is good enough.......
And think about the upload time you will have to need to wait for. 24 hours? hahaha
Not needed, dump it
4K is 4 times bigger to view then 1080p, but is 8 times larger in size
ReplyDeleteBring on the 4k computer monitors.
ReplyDeleteDamn... Movies at home??? R.I.P THEATRES...
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeletePLEASE use this chance to integrate an (2*1920)x1080 option, so that 3d videos could be stored as a megaframe video (or even better support dual stream storage support ;)).
so in this way 3d blu-rays are not the only way to get real stereoscopic 3d video images in 1080p.
:)
Andreas
www.hdtvtotal.com
Forgive me if this is a noob question: Why is 4k only 4:3 ratio? No widescreen?
ReplyDeleteWow you guys are negative. I, too, would like to see longer vidoes but I do not see this as pointless. What may be nearly pointless now is a step towards advancement. I am glad to see this being experimented with.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI already got the original button on my 1440p and 2 megapixel videos
ReplyDeleteyou dont need to have like an sixty thousand dollar camera to have 4k, all you need is an hd camera and xilisoft hd video converter, change the video size to 4k, 40000 bit rate, thats all!
ReplyDeleteThis is so stupid...
ReplyDeleteLike other people have said, they should implement support for 60fps (though I believe that's a flash limitation?) and videos above 10 minutes instead of such a high resolution that's only useful for 0.01% of the site's visitors if even.
TBH, I would preferred higher FPS instead…
ReplyDeletePlease up the bitrate.
ReplyDeleteUpon closer inspection, your samples are encoded poorly. Life in the Garden is nothing but an over-quantized mess of solid-color macroblocks and partitions. You can't easily see it when viewing the whole frame, because it has to be scaled down to fit on your screen. If you zoom in to a level closer to 1:1, you start to see what a mess it is.
ReplyDeleteHere is one randomly-chosen frame: http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5882/gardenstill.png
Make sure you zoom in to 100% level.
I don't like two things about Youtube, Video duration and copyright.
ReplyDeleteMore resolution? Seems like overkill. It seems like Google is trying to beat the competition in a resolution arms race. I think what is really lacking and what would make the largest impact in online video is if Google allowed 60p or 60fps videos:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=498ec09cc9c9fea0&hl=en
Examples here when 60p WAS (past tense) allowed (via direct untouched flv uploads is my best guess):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRH-xagnvBw&fmt=5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xN6eL_pAPw&fmt=5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ9ZZbEttyU&fmt=5
Youtube should be minding Dmca abuse rather than this
ReplyDeleteUploading videos for 25 foot screens. Partners such as myself can upload 20 gb videos.
ReplyDeleteRemove the 10 minute time limit that the little guy has. It does not prevent copyright infringement. People just upload videos in multiple parts.
You are punishing the innocent while the copyright pirates still get away with it.
720p was good enough, but you just had to keep pushing it, didn't you?
ReplyDeleteI don't even watch 720p videos
ReplyDeleteHow about higher framerates? There are loads of videos currently available (and currently viewable on average display technologies) in 50-60fps
ReplyDeleteSupport for 10/12 bit?
ReplyDeleteSuch short-sighted people.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have is a chicken and egg problem. Nobody is releasing 4K monitors, because "oh well there's no 4K content", so Youtube offers the ability to display 4K content, and now the ISP's go running for the hills because "OMG our slow networks will actually be slow, argh, killitnow!"
Really, there are a lot of native source (eg swf vector flash, Pixar 3D, stuff made with toonboom studio, etc) that can be vector upscaled to 4K losslessly if they want to, but most won't at this time.
What youtube needs is to do is deliver a "youtube encoder" and "upload tool" in one. It's quite a painful experience to upload a 2GB video only to get a "unable to convert" message once it's done. Even if all the tool does is slice it into 10MB chunks and Youtube reassembles it on the other side, just don't waste our time uploading these Super HD videos and then say it doesn't convert.
My internet connection is good enough to download the video, but my computer processor is not. What amazes me is that I am not using an old computer. I attempted to see the video with a 24-inch iMac with Core 2 duo (released in mid 2009) and 8Gb of RAM. I thought it would be enough, but it isn't.
ReplyDelete> That feature should be able to embedded in the website also.
ReplyDelete> Please, this is the Youtube's Blog. Can you people stop saying 1st / first / whatever it is? Stop being ridiculous as you're not the first commenter.
At this point Vimeo's 1080p encoding looks to be vastly superior in terms of quality to YouTube's "4k"
ReplyDeleteYouTube can't even get 1080p right as their encoders are decimating every other line, creating a half res "1080p" rather than displaying full 1080p.
It's disappointing.
Filmes 1080p | Buzz - FilmesHD
Just give us a working "always play HD when possible" -setting, please. It's frustrating to use YouTube with a 100M connection when you have to increase the video quality manually every bloody time playing a new video.
ReplyDeleteWhat codec this you use for 4K? H.264 / RAW / else?
ReplyDeleteWhat Computer spec to play this 4K?
If only LCD vendor using the same density (dpi) as same as my handphone it would be make this 4K as child play. IPhone 4G has 323 dpi and if it use in 19" LCD this monitor would have 6131 diagonal pixel.
That's it thx.
You introduced a format that's not even usable for your ordinary Youtube user, instead of, like, increasing the runtime limit?
ReplyDeleteHaving an 11 minute limit is really stupid and a pain for those of us uploading hour long videos. If you want to do something that will help your users then eliminate this stupid restricition. The upload size limit of 1 GB makes the 11 minute limit sheer stupidity anyhow as it's the video's file size that determines the bandwidth used and not it's length.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the people saying how pointless 4K is for consumers. There are no video cards that can display it properly. You'd need four (4) monitors, set up 2x2 and linked together to get the effect. That's if you have two video cards supporting a MAX resolution of 2048x1536.
ReplyDeleteEven then, who would have the time to buffer a full video in 4K? At our current internet speeds, it would take all day to buffer it.
@naim
ReplyDeleteI, for one, had no lag with my 1200$ gaming pc and fios 25mbit internet.
remove the 11 time limit.
ReplyDeletethere is a option to shuffle and auto-play music or any video,put a option for auto-repeat!
make censured music uncensored,talk to vevo about this!!!
and stop it about music copy write!its really lame
and one more thing,can ignore this if you want!
make a section really strict!!! a normal age and a over 18 restriction!!!allow porns in the category of 18 and over.if you want.
oh one more thing make the user account allow gif back ground (moving back ground)i don't see why you guys remove this option?
woa, this is soo exciting, although i cannot watch the vids on my hd computer, but i see how youtube has reached a new high.
ReplyDelete(too many pixels...., .....eyes cannot process......, noooooooooo!) :)>
Seriously, I completely don’t see a point of doing that. Why Google tries to do things that will benefit little to most of the end users?
ReplyDeleteI just wonder the need for this, giving non partners something like 20 minutes and hd would be a lot more appreciated than this... crappy, unused, just for the news feature... thanks, it really means a lot for us...
ReplyDeletePure hypocrisy. Our background image can't be bigger than 256kb but we can upload 3072p videos??
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, all videos are recorded at this resolution but the quality is ridiculous which is why they reduce it to 1080p.
Second, who has the time to download or upload such a video? DSL and Cable are barely catching up with the high bitrate for 1080p. Ultra Definition Television is far away.
that does not seem useful for the average computer user....who really has the processing power or grpahics to display "4k" video?
ReplyDeleteThe "Original" resolution should allow the user to upload any arbitrary size (such as PC monitor resolutions like 800x600, 1280x1024, etc) and allow the viewer to play it at its original resolution.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are high....
ReplyDeleteI'd appreciate it if you could resolve the age-old peering issues to the net of the German Telekom before introducing bigger and bigger resolutions. I have a DSL16k access - that should be more than enough for (at least normal 1080p) HD videos.
ReplyDeleteBut for some reason of all the websites I use, Youtube is the only one which barely uses 10% of the available bandwidth while all the other sites are loading at full speed.
Can you *please* fix this problem? It's existed for years now and it annoys the hell out of not only me but all of your users which happen to have an access by Germany's biggest ISP.
Two things:
ReplyDeleteI know that you guys are enthusiastic about your ridiculous resolutions, but shouldn't you have started with 1440p or 1600p? The largest consumer MONITORS I know of top out at approximately such, and I'm not really feeling the idea of buying a projector for this stuff.
Secondly, the 10 minute limit on videos is most likely because Youtube doesn't want people uploading full television shows or movies, not that it'll stop people. At best, it inconveniences them.
I,ve uploaded my 4k video's today
ReplyDeletewatch them at http://youtube.com/user/arttef
Stop trying to be a home theater, YouTube. If I wanted to watch a movie at 3072p (NOT 4096p) I'd go to a movie theater. If I wanted to watch TV on my PC I'd use a program dedicated to that. If I wanted to watch a movie at home I'd buy a DVD or Blu Ray of that movie.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's completely missing the point of the Internet, a web browser and YouTube itself. The Internet is meant to be something to share information and find out new things, not give you a home theater. A web browser is supposed to display that information and allow you to "surf" the Internet, not give you a home theater. YouTube, from what I understand, was meant to be a video sharing site where you can browse videos of anime, cartoons, games (especially upcoming releases for those of you who are anticipating a game or two), tutorials on how to do something, or whatever else I can't think of, but nope, Google just HAD to try to turn it into an online home theater.
Go on, continue wrecking your rep. It'll only lead to your downfall.
According to wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"The DCI specification for digital projectors calls for two levels of playback to be supported: 2K (2048×1080) or 2.2 MP at 24 or 48 frames per second, and 4K (4096×2160) or 8.85 MP at 24 frames per second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
Of course thats for digital cinema projection. Youtube is using 4096 x 2304 which is a 16:9 version of 4k.
ReplyDeleteI think those compmlaining about the quality are suffering from some kind of overlay/post processing failure. If its blocky in a strange way like nothings being filtered then its probably a rendering failure. I doubt most things are spec or tested for 4k compliance. If you look at the 1080p video you'll notice even macro artifacts in those videos are smoothed over by your video renderer, if thats missing thats probably the issue..or one of the issues.
ReplyDeleteIf YouTube had hardware acceleration this wouldn't be a problem displaying on my monitor (1080p monitor). I can't even play 1080p without it lagging due to this.
ReplyDeletePlease make a Java player or something that will be able to take advantage of our GPUs.
This is ridiculous. It's like you guys are doing and leaving things half way. For God's sake! Finish one thing right please.
ReplyDeleteMaybe someone from youtube forgot to mention that these features are not exactly for the old CPUs.
ReplyDeleteNext time you either tell this to people or don't make these features!
Would you tell us at what bit rate you are encoding and streaming the 4k video?
ReplyDeleteDear all its so beautiful.But I want More Picture in 4K.
ReplyDeleteGood lord, I can just imagine how enormous these files must be. Soon you folks at YouTube are going to need your own server PLANET to house all of these videos.
ReplyDeletewell this is kind of useless, but still a very cool thing that youtube actually lets you watch streamed videos in these kind of resolutions.
ReplyDeleteunfortunately no one has a monitor that supports this kind of resolution, nor a quad screen setup.
also the bitrate is WAY WAY too low for it to actually look good. here is an imagedump of the actual resolution, in mpc-hc: http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman01/Surf_NYC_4K_resolution_.mp4_snapshot_00.34_%5B2010.07.12_09.54.47%5D.jpg
I used to be sorry for youtube when Shay Carl uploaded long a$$ videos; but with this renovation i think youtube doesn't care about their servers!
ReplyDeleteI think Red One captures according to tech specs:
ReplyDelete4520 (h) x 2540 (v)
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI have an event of "4K Digital Cinema Festival" in Japan in these years.
http://dcexpo.jp/en/theater/4k.html
And I'm also some contents of 4K platform.
I believe this year's subject must include "Youtube4K" however I couldn't find how can I upload such a huge file into YouTube.
Could you tell me actual file format for this?
best regards,
Akihiko
Wow, the clip ' (( Secret World )) 4k Footage'
ReplyDeletewhich is 3min19sec is 163.6MB
Seems like Google is looking into streaming movies into theaters. That's all I can think of as a use for this now. If so cool.
ReplyDeleteLots of haters on here, as usual. Most of those are just smart enough to pull their underpants on in the morning & haven't done anything of note ever.
My favorite comments are from tools that started with "first" even though they were 18th & 20th respectively.
W0W. In Latvia we have 500Mbps optic-fiber internet connection available. Yey! At least one reason to live in Latvia :)
ReplyDeleteCan we just stick with 1080p and have higher bitrate audio instead? Many people don't have the hardware to play 4k pixel resolution video, but they do have the hardware to play high bitrate audio.
ReplyDeleteWhen are you supporting the very common native PAL 720x576?
ReplyDeleteWhen are you supporting the very common 720x576 PAL?
ReplyDeleteInstead of 4K, why don't you focus on something worthwile? extending time limits, better bit-rate on SD and 720p/1080p videos, an option to search for favorites, a player that's not crap, etc. and that's just off the top of my head.
ReplyDeletePointless.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually pretty useless because most of us don't have computers with enough power to stream 4k comfortably, that and I doubt that most of YouTubers have access to a fucking 25-foot television that doubles as a monitor.
ReplyDeleteMore resolution? Seems like overkill. It seems like Google is trying to beat the competition in a resolution arms race. I think what is really lacking and what would make the largest impact in online video is if Google allowed 60p or 60fps videos:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=498ec09cc9c9fea0&hl=en
Examples here when 60p WAS (past tense) allowed (via direct untouched flv uploads is my best guess):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRH-xagnvBw&fmt=5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xN6eL_pAPw&fmt=5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ9ZZbEttyU&fmt=5
Just goes to show that the bandwidth required to stream this kind of resolution is just around the corner.
ReplyDeletewhats the point? how many of us have such high resolution screens?
ReplyDeleteFile size : 93.7 MiB
ReplyDeleteDuration : 2mn 9s
Overall bit rate : 6 083 Kbps
You call that 4k? you are having a laugh! This is pathetic. Increase Bitrate for 720 first, 1080 is still too terrible to watch.
Knowledgable discussion regarding the subject starting here: http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/323132-Youtube-now-streaming-4k-video
ReplyDeleteAnother MegaPUXel$ for idiots :)
ReplyDeleteyou tube is playing up cant do anything on it right now
ReplyDeleteHey before moving on to higher resolution video fix your shitty servers. I have a fast connection, and youtube still loads super slow.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read... 6Mbps for 4k/2160p?!? Like, really? I'm serious, really?
ReplyDeleteI record and encode my *standard definition* videos in 9Mbps, whether I am using MPEG-4, XviD, or H.264. That's standard definition. And I'm using a higher bitrate than you're using for 4k? I'm speechless...
YT, unless you have some secret super efficient lossless codec that you're not sharing with the rest of the world, please ditch 4k support and work on improving your codec and/or compression. Or increase video length. Or support hardware rendering. Or allow larger file sizes. Or fix 1080p. Or let us use larger background images on channels. Or just something that would affect more than .1% of people.
Thanks
:)
I'm fully aware that I've probably missed it since it's been edited since, but I fail to see where they mention 4096p (or w/e, the number is too weird and long and it's too late/early). Furthermore, why the hell are you guys complaining? Yes, they use Adobe Flash to display their videos... because like 90% of people who visit the net have it installed. Sure they could use a Java platform, but Java's not going to be any better, Java creates an emulated platform it interacts with which when you are talking video adds a hefty processing draw. Sure they could use Html5 except most browsers aren't ready to play with this, plus it's still having kinks worked out. [And being developed].
ReplyDeleteNow onwards: No, they don't need to add 4k yet and their 4k is not 4k of good pixels, but it is better than your standard def and IMO better than 1080p on YouTube. Adding it now is obviously a move towards a future project (ie Google TV or something similar), just enjoy it and shut up.
Yes it takes ages to load, yes it takes a lot of processing power, however you are dealing with something in the order of 4.5x more pixels. Even compressed that's a huge increase. If you didn't expect either of those [Load/Power], then by god please step away from the computer.
Compression: Yes, their videos are compressed rather severely. I imagine that that's because Flash will be doing something to do with it, on top of the fact that serving a 30 MB files to 65 million people is going to get rather expensive 30 MB * 65 Mil peeps = 1.8 Petabytes of data sent. [One of Justin Biebers videos hit around this many views, and 30 MB is a realistic size for a standard def uncompressed video]. However add video compression, and you cut that down to about 8 MB [The actual size of the flv version of his One Less Lonely Girl song which had 62 mil hits], and you cut the data down to 495 Terabytes. It's 18MB in HQ[.mp4], which is 1.08 Petabytes of data. This is the reason that the videos are ad supported and compressed so heavily. Believe it or not, they are a business and are there to try and actually survive. Not to mention when you have that many connections going on, you are doing to start having serious bottlenecks with the amount of people they can serve at once. Smaller videos mean that people are out of the way quicker and thus less likely to cause someone to have to wait or get a server timeout error.
Adding a surround sound to a video will boost it's size by an incredible amount. Once again, modern technology just can't do it cheaply yet.
TL;DR version:
They are a business, putting out lesser compressed high quality videos to that many people is far too expensive and impractical at this point. Further more, wait until HTML5 is ready before you advocate a move to it. Further, further more, Flash is part of the problem here but they do hold the majority of the Internet user base; deal with it for now.
Also, you're complaining about them adding features?
They are aware of the current limitations, don't be idiots. I mean seriously, do you think they look at the video and go "Oh man, that is like super high def, it just looks so gorgeous, their's not pixelations or anything."...
Modern Net Tech simply can't do what you guys want cheaply enough to be able to break even with what it's going to cost in hosting and what they'll earn from it.
TL;DR version of the TL;DR:
Stop all the freakin' hating. If you think you can do better, do it.
The cheapest 4k monitor I could find was $30,000.
ReplyDeleteUntil you have a $30,000 monitor, there is absolutely no reason why you should ever watch a video in 4k.
You're just watching a giant video, being scrunched down to fit on your pitiful, probably-not-even-1080p monitor, and it likely will look much better if you just watch it at a proper, native resolution to your monitor (like 720p or 1080p, or perhaps even lower).
Annoys me that people might get excited about this even though they can't even take advantage of it :\
Either they're total idiots or they've got some logically really weird scheme going on. Obviously this benefits only really rich people with 5m screens and those 4k projectors, and of course cinemas/film makers. This being the case they could very well restrict 4k use to special accounts in order to avoid delirious people hogging up the bandwidth.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume I stop seeing individual pixels with text at a 30 degree viewing angle (from between my eyes to both sides of the screen) on a 1280x800 screen. If I had a 4096 h.pixel screen with the same pixel size, I would be viewing the screen from a 81,2 degree angle.
This means that if you were watching from a 5m (16.4 ft) screen, you'd be sitting about 2.9m (9.6 ft) away (assuming you sat right at the center).
The respective viewing angle for 1080p is 43,8 degrees. This means you could be watching a 2.3m (7.6 ft) wide screen from the same 2.9m distance and still perceive the same pixel size.
So basically, people with TVs or computer screens won't benefit from 4k.
This is cool, good stuff!
ReplyDeleteEdison's 1908 films look and play better than 4K.
ReplyDeleteTalk to ISPs (bandwidth) and the people who have computers bought later than last month (video/audio cards).
We don't all upload or watch YT from a PS.
Lame. Go up to 4320p UHD(T)V and then we'll be talking. Also, what others said: >10 minute video limit and 60fps.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can't post a comment with my YouTube account? Wow..
Oh, and one more thing: I hope HTML 5 and Web M and all that stuff will start to be more prevalent. Opera already supports it in its current final build. Much better than Chrome and Firefox in several aspects.
ReplyDeleteThis is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have a display that costs about two thousand dollars and it's not that hi-res. Who is this FOR?
ReplyDeleteWhy is youtube not hearing us in regards to the ability of being able to upload videos longer than 10:59? They keep increasing the resolution (which is great) but we want to be able to upload self created videos that are longer than 10 minutes! It seems that Youtube is less and less interested in the people that forged this site and made it what it is today in favor of this "partner" paradigm; that if you are not some goofy guy that acts like a fool on camera or some ultra hot make up guru chick with 300,000 subscribers, youtube doesn't even hear you when you speak! This is very sad! It seems the little guys that just want one thing, just one: the ability to upload videos that they created themselves that are over 10:59, are not really all that important to a company like Google/Youtube! These were the folks that put Youtube on the map of growth over the past 5 years. We are being completely squeezed out of existence and ignored! Rant over.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anybody can run it smoothly at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Youtube has avoided being a bottleneck by allowing this new resolution, and by supporting features like this, it is only speeding up the rate at which the rest of the industry adopts this new standard.
ReplyDeleteI really wish that youtube could have a page showing a timeline, with all of the new features they would like to include (longer video lengths, 60/120 fps videos, 3D monitor support...). It's a novelty to see what Google plans to do next!
This is just a little more than POINTLESS!!!!!
ReplyDeleteGawd google, why must you screw EVERYTHING up
you probably don't even read comments like this or approve them since you're too busy shoving $100 bills up your ass...
@Micheal same...
Wow 1080P was great but this new 4K is above and beyond all expectations. Thanks Google!
ReplyDeleteWow, how ridiculous. I'd much prefer to have an actual comment system that works, a compression system that isn't terrible, or a video length longer than 10 minutes.
ReplyDeleteIt's gonna look like shit because of the limited bitrate. A little darkness and you'll see the blocks. Just look at Big Buck Bunny at 1080p (and 720p too for that matter). If all those bits that got wasted into 1080p would've been used to encode in 720p, the outcome would've pretty much looked like a scene release.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharring importent information in this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt was very nice.
Ask Flashlari
school
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete4K is actually 4096x2304. You people calculate it in wrong way not google/youtube. 2K is 2048x1152.
ReplyDeletethank you
ReplyDeletecasus telefon
telefon dinleme
casus telefon yazılımı
casus telefon dinleme
telefon dinleme programı
casus telefon
dinleme cihazları
casus telefon dinleme
dinleme cihazı
dinleme cihazı
özel dedektif
özel dedektif
Hey, I just watched a video off the playlist that has been taped in 4K. I have a 4 year old iMac and it played perfectly with no problems. I have Comcast high speed, too. So if you have a PC, GET A MAC. There are only 2 viruses for Macs, not 6 million like the PCs have.
ReplyDeleteIts funny because people complaining are complaining for the sole reason their computers/connections arent good enough to view it.
ReplyDeleteWhy all the pixels that MOST people won't be able to see?
ReplyDeleteSurely it would be better to up the TEMPORAL resolution.
up to 72fps which is supported by .wmv or
up to 300fps with some high speed cameras.
Most computers today can't play this resolution of footage, and most internet connections today can't provide the required bandwidth anyway, but this is beside the point. The point is YouTube has these protocols in place as soon as possible so that people can upload 4K footage if they've got it, and not have to reduce resolution to upload footage today, only to have to re-upload it later in 4K.
ReplyDeletee.g. I'm glad that I can upload my original footage in 1080 today, even though I choose only watch in 480 or 720 due to my connection speed, but this will change once Australia gets it's planned optical fibre to home network.
4K, nice resolution but really, it is pointless unless you have a screen that supports the res natively. Otherwise watching higher than 1080 on your 1080 screen will make diagonal lines look distorted for example.
ReplyDeleteAll in the efforts to get you hooked then make you pay once you can't live without it. And when you pay, incomes the hardcore censorship and it becomes a cable network. But no, you'll still think all the user submitted content gets through. Hello editor.
In fact, the internet as a whole is soon to become a grand cable network when Internet 2 comes about. As Internet 2's slogan says, 'The internet is dead'. I guess they want to 'fix' it. More like break it.
Great!
ReplyDeleteI just upload my 4K clip on YouTube. Enjoy!
View in HD or 4K!!!
4K Timelapse - American Cities
This is a great featuree, allowing fullHD in stereoscopic 3D. TV sets capable of this are landing in homes all over the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that you need a PC with an Intel Core i7 CPU, at least 8 GB RAM, and a high-powered HD graphics card with at least 1.5 GB graphics memory to watch 4K videos.
ReplyDeleteThis requires an ultra-fast broadband connection "even on Youtube"? Try ESPECIALLY on Youtube! Even if I had the four monitors and two video cards I would need to watch 4K, I would not be masochistic enough to do this with a browser plugin!
ReplyDeleteI think it's more important to allow high speed video (50 or 60 frames per second) than allowing more than 1080p frame sizes, because computers which are able to render more than 1080 videos are rare.
ReplyDeletethey must be uploaded for the bestbuy staff who plays 720p or worse on full HD Tvs.
ReplyDeleteindeed why doesn't goggle/Youtube even publicly acknowledge that they use older ffmpeg or even contribute back their patchs to the main codebase as is expected as a basic courtesy from goggle/Youtube/ jogos para celular using it and profiting from it's use ?
ReplyDeletealso the generic super filmes HD 4K as defined and tested in September 2003 is 3840×2048 for 2K, and 7680×4320 for 4K so your a little low and late at 4096x3072 that's 3K NOT 4K as you state above BTW ....
I don't think that anybody can run it smoothly at the moment, but it doesn't matter. Youtube has avoided being a bottleneck download de filmes by allowing this new resolution, and by supporting features like this, it is only speeding up the rate at which the rest of the industry adopts this new standard.
ReplyDeleteI can hack youtube in first week of June. May be 3 or 4 June. Lets wait and see.
ReplyDeleteProtip: Upscale your vids by 2X width and height and upload as that to reduce the negative effects of Youtube's atrocious video compression which they seem to refuse to fix while having no problem introducing higher resolutions.
ReplyDeletewaiting for Ultra HDTV 4320p
ReplyDeleteWhoever posted that Google is "innovating" is ignorant! Allowing viewing of higher quality video is not innovating, inventing something that can create this content for cheap, that is innovating. Most people do not have the Internet speeds, NOR the screen resolutions, NOR the graohic cards to display these videos. They affect almost noone. These are the real things you should be concentrating on:
ReplyDeleteHTML5
Better video compression
More FPS
Taking away the video time limit
This is a good thing, since as one commenter has mentioned, it saves people reuploading footage AFTER Google supports it only when more people can view it, but the top things are problems and complaints that many users have. This 4K thing is just an appeasing tactic, to keep the users engaged.
Who needs this?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you can already see each hair on the skin of actors with 1080p.
To me, this is just a total waste of resources.
I think this is a great idea. I have downloaded 4K2K Videos.
ReplyDeleteIt is great to crop them and look at a specific area of the Video in detail.
With new technology we need to use a new way of doing things.
Will YouTube please update the Flash Player's ability to allow:
1. A Checkbox to turn on/off "zoom".
2. Allow us to use the Mousewheel (when over the Flash Player) to control the zoom.
Then we can mouseover the Video and use the Mousewheel to zoom in on the portion of the Video we wish to concentrate on without seeing any blockiness.
Please note that 4K means 4096 and not 4000. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
We also need the QFHD (3840x2160) Format, that is exactly 4 times 1080P.
There is one new Video Camera (GC-PX10) on the market for less than a U$1000 that supports 3840x2160 (16:9).
Many newer digital Cameras have a fast still picture rate and can be used to create 4K2K Videos at frame rates from 8-30 FPS and there is always the option of making video from time-lapse photography.
It is also possible to purchase 4K2K Monitors and Projectors in the months to come. Not everyone (including me) can afford 4K2K Monitors (let alone even a decent 1920x1080 Monitor) but the world does not have to wait for them, all of us could use zoom (with a new Flash Player) to enjoy a whole new experience.
Thank you YouTube for doing this.
"Original" resolution is perfect for the high quality 3D movies too.
ReplyDeleteI've used this option several times when I uploaded 3840x1080 resolution 3D side by side videos (3D FullHD SBS).
The 3D quality was amazing and I was very impressed with this new feature.
... But some weeks ago the "original" option has disappeared from the quality list of our videos.
Here you can check them:
http://www.youtube.com/greenzero3d
...Today I've uploaded a new video with the same resolution and it is showing the "original" feature again.
http://www.youtube.com/greenzero3d#p/u/4/OxOSvwRy2Pc
So what? Could anyone help?
Thanks, Adam
`youtube 1080i30 (59hertz)setting should also be avail since the majority of stuff is avail in this format!
ReplyDeletelot of people send you 1080i video thinking they ll be in 1080i but as we all know everything is reconverted in 1080p24!i hope you correct this since 50% use 1080i and 50% use 1080p.ty
this is just awesome!!!
ReplyDeletevery cool technology, but no good will advance or anything, not even where the system bandwidth of 10 M, as in Brazil. And another question is easy to transmit, even in low-streaming technology for those interested in attending or share universal experiences, but even culture. For me, I hope that YouTube, make the selection of options for resolutions to choose from all types of users.
ReplyDelete4K no longer? All the videos I used to watch in 4K (4096x2306, etc.) are now only available in 2048x1536 resolution. Did YouTube quietly do away with 4K?
ReplyDeletethere is no pull down menu
ReplyDeleteWould like to know what kind of Compression type are supported for 4K. Also would like to know how to send file embeded with 5.1 audio. Your support document says here ( http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722171 ) that channels supported are Stereo + 5.1. How can we embed stereo + 5.1 audio channels in MP4 using Mac or PC?
ReplyDelete