YouTube Adds 'Leanback,' Support For 4K Video 204
teh31337one writes with news that YouTube has announced support for 4K video, which runs at a resolution of 4096 x 3072. From their blog: "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. ... Because 4K represents the highest quality of video available, there are a few limitations that you should be aware of. First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K aren't cheap, and projectors that show videos in 4K are typically the size of a small refrigerator. And, as we mentioned, watching these videos on YouTube will require super-fast broadband." They provided a small playlist of videos shot in 4K. This announcement comes a few days after YouTube debuted "Leanback," a service that attempts to find and serve videos you'll like based on past viewing habits, as well as offering a simplified method of browsing.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes double for any format with lossy compression(ie. pretty much all of them in any sort of practical use), where you could declare that your format is 16,000,000x9,000,000 pixels, and thus the awesomest available, and then compress it down to 1Mb/S. The result would look roughly like the original Wolfenstein; but it would be the highest resolution out there.
Re:What is this for again? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would take flashless WebM support over 4K all day long. I can only view less than 0.01% of the youtube content currently because of flash so I am not really that excited about 4K just yet.
Re:4K?? They can't even do 1080p yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be far more impressed by this news, had it not been for YouTube's dismal implementation of 1080p, which in reality is only 1920x540. Yes, they effectively do 1080i, but remove one of the frames entirely.
This should prove the point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyFGDHPm-tc
It's called Blu-Ray. Expecting to see true 2K on a free streaming site is asking a lot. I just watched a 1080 video on Youtube that looked nice for streaming. Was it true 1080P, no, deal with it. It wasn't that long ago that live streaming video was a frame every 5 minutes. It was a big deal when people started streaming multiple frames a second at extreme low res. The rate of advancement is breathtaking.
Stop the hatin' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about less compression? (Score:4, Insightful)
As 20 seconds in the image manipulation program of your choice will easily demonstrate, you can resize an image(and, by extension, a series of images) from any resolution you have to any resolution you want, subject only to the limits of your RAM and your patience.
If all video were lossless, or there were some iron law stating "though shalt allocate no less than X bits per Y pixels", comparing videos by resolution might actually matter. As it is, though, in most real world situations, the limitation is in the bitrate(unless you have a really crap monitor), and, while you can smear your too-few-Mb/s mpeg4 over as "high resolution" an output as you like, it isn't going to look any better.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Also - tons of people actually have cameras perfectly capable of making videos in this resolution, assuming they are of quite specific kind - stop motion animation.
But yeah, I would prefer better bitrates (and/or encoding methods; H.264 won't be the last word) in more "standard" resolutions than such things basically just for show. Vimeo has "only" HD, with with their higher bitrates they look better (plus one can download the initial file)
Framerate, not resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar, etc.) says that higher frame rates are more valuable than higher resolution. He wanted to do Avatar at 48FPS, but the technology wasn't there yet. The sequel probably will be at a higher frame rate. Cameron points out that 4K resolution is worthless beyond the first few rows of the theater, but frame rate benefits all viewers.
It's a real issue for Cameron, who, as a director, likes sweeping panoramas with high detail. If you pan slowly over a high-resolution scene at 24FPS, there are visible artifacts. This precludes certain shots which look great and ought to be in the movie. It's necessary to defocus slightly or add motion blur for certain shots.
So YouTube should work on getting their frame rates up, not their resolutions. Let's see some IMAX movies at 48FPS on YouTube.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, this is on YouTube. I'm sure compression brought the quality below a 1080p Blu-Ray the instant it was uploaded.
Re:I think this may kill the horse porn industry (Score:1, Insightful)
It makes no difference for sick bastards like the OP, who are clearly into ponies.
Re:Framerate, not resolution (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stop the hatin' (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you! Reading page after page of complaints about this was disheartening. Not everyone has lost their sense of imagination.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can't tell the difference; your monitor resolution means that the video is being rendered down to only a few percent over 1080p anyway, and the same will be the case for almost everyone. Support for this will cater to a niche audience for the moment, whilst also allowing for wider adoption of higher-resolution cameras, monitors and graphics cards. This is how it always is in the world of tech; we settle into a certain pattern of what we can expect our hardware to achieve, and then someone releases software (or a service, or something) that requires hardware currently on the upper bounds, slowly encouraging people to purchase it, manufacturers to lower the costs, and R&D to start working on the next high-end until eventually the cutting-edge hardware it required is mainstream.
Remember that once upon a time, 640k of RAM *really was* enough for pretty much anyone.
Re:Framerate, not resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly all the technology in the world did not stop James from making one of the worst movies ever.
Yeah, yeah, sanctimonious hyperbole. If you think Avatar is literally one of the worst movies ever you've never seen an Uwe Bolle film - he's got a couple of dozen big-budget crapfests. Then there are all the evangelical-produced end-days/rapture movies which as a genre are uniformly terrible. After those easy categories there are still thousands of really poor films out there in all genres. Avatar may have had pedestrian story-telling but only a reverse-fan-boi is going to claim that it is close to the bottom of the barrel.
No imagination (Score:3, Insightful)
Who has a 25 foot screen at home?
Well, someone must be buying them, when even Walmart has them for sale:
Draper Cineflex Cineperm Fixed Frame Screen - 25' diagonal NTSC Format [walmart.com]
Really, just an honest question, if the bulk of humanity can't watch this in the manner it was designed for..why bother? Isn't this like driving around a 3 ton SUV to get to work in?
No.
It's more like the open air cinema projects that began in the silent era:
Open Air Cinema, [openaircinema.us] Open Air Cinema & Film Aid in Tanzania [openaircinema.us]
FilmAid International [filmaid.org]
Aren't we supposed to be all doing our part to just stop wasting resources for the hell of it?
I am tempted to argue that the geek sees bandwidth as waste - any resource as a waste - only when someone else has it - uses it - and is willing to pay the price.
The argument is specious anyway.
The 4Kx2K movie can be stamped onto a cheap plastic disk. Delivered by mail or streamed off a satellite.
Bandwith is a problem only when you want instant gratification.
Does it really matter if the 4Kx2K Monsters vs Aliens takes two or three days to download in the background at very low priority?
Re:Metricate your shit already, America! (Score:4, Insightful)
Little known secret: All people who use “feet” as a measuring unit, are foot fetishists. ;)
Even less known secret: All people who don’t, quietly assume it anyway. ^^
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Insightful)
**double-hint: Nyquist had some things to say about your "hint."
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Insightful)
As sweet as it sounds, do we really need more than 1920x1080?
Do we realy need 24bit colors? Do we realy need one gigabyte harddrives?! Do we...
So let me ask you a question: Why do you think anti-aliasing exists? Why do you think most people still print out their emails/letters/rapports before sending them?