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.
Mess (Score:3, Interesting)
Youtube makes a horrible mess of 1080p Hi-Def video and uses far too much CPU to display, on my system much more than the original HD video does, what would it do to video with more detail than Hi-Def?
What is this for again? (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, I am downloading one just to try it out, there's no way in heck I can stream it, I can't even stream "normal" you tube vids yet, just can't get a good enough internet connection around here for that. So..what is this ultra high resolution for again? Who has a 25 foot screen at home? Why the bandwith wasteage? 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? Aren't we supposed to be all doing our part to just stop wasting resources for the hell of it? Just "because you can" is somehow bad when it comes to some forms of energy use, but other forms get a pass because it's connected to a computer? Google is supposedly "green", I am not seeing pushing this as being all that "green". How about "good enough" video quality with less megs being needed to be transferred instead, as a focus?
How about less compression? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Framerate, not resolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and after frame rate higher dynamic range. Screen resolution is a distant third.
Re:Mess (Score:3, Interesting)
Youtube might be making a play for something. Maybe they want to be the video source for Anime conventions. Maybe they hope to get projected before movies at low-end theaters who don't have advertising contracts but who do have digital projectors. Maybe they want better-than-1080p resolution for those pesky high resolution PC monitors. Maybe they're just trying to counter the image that Youtube is still all about postage-stamp sized videos of squirrels getting drunk.
Either way, 4K is pretty future proof. If source video started getting uploaded in 4k, they could display across Imax theaters, regular theaters, 1080p HDTV's, CRT's, and cellphones... Sort of the way that sound gets recorded in 24bits or higher, despite being generally played back in 16 bits.
Re:Who cares. (Score:3, Interesting)
Youtube is pretty much unwatchable now, between the annoying boxes people put on videos to the annoying ads. I may never find out about their new features, because I don't go there anymore.
When YouTube ditches Flash for Javascript and HTML5 video, we'll all be able to hack YouTube with browser add-ons like Greasemonkey to disable the annoying boxes people add to videos when/if we want, or move them so they don't obscure the video.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:1, Interesting)
Which is all fine and dandy but not really that usefull at home. Visual quality probably doesn't improve at all after 4k (in said home setting). The average human can discern two points that are about 1 arcminute apart of each other. At 50cm distance this is about 290dpi. On a 22" monitor (with 16:9 aspect ratio) it'd require a resolution of ~3400x1900 pixel. The end is near! :) Still cool though of course.
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Interesting)
Gee, that's almost the resolution needed to show a square inch of a Durer etching!
Re:not the highest resolution: 8k super hi-vision (Score:3, Interesting)
You could also duct tape a few cameras together and use a computer to stich the different images together to get higher resolution...