Safari Users Unable to Play Newer 4K Video On YouTube in Native Resolution (macrumors.com) 124
It appears Google recently turned on VP9 codec on YouTube for delivering 4K video. However, because of this, Safari users are unable to watch videos uploaded to the service since early December in full 4K resolution. From a report: Specifically, YouTube appears to be storing video on its servers using either the more efficient VP9 codec or the older H.264 codec. Safari only supports the latter, which explains why recently uploaded 4K videos are only able to be viewed in up to 1440p. Funnily enough, the same videos can be streamed by Safari in native 4K as long as they're embedded in another website, suggesting that the VP9 codec support requirement only applies to videos viewed directly on YouTube's website. Until Apple updates Safari to support the VP9 codec, Mac users who want to access newer 4K video on YouTube in native 2160p resolution are advised to use a different browser.John Gruber of DaringFireball writes, "I'm curious what Google's thinking is here. My guess: a subtle nudge to get more Mac users to switch from Safari to Chrome. 4K playback is going to require H.264 support if they want it to work on iOS, though."
"4K" playback on iOS? (Score:1)
Don't even bother mentioning video output; the Lightning adapter can barely handle 1600x900.
Re: (Score:2)
why would anyone use the lightning adapter for playback on a TV? just airplay it to an apple tv
Lightning is cheaper (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a Lightning adapter is cheaper than an Apple TV.
But then because of limited throughput over Lightning, the Lightning adapter uses AirPlay protocol anyway [slashdot.org], and it isn't even full 1080p.
Freedom is cheaper and safer in the long run. (Score:2)
So many /. posters won't do this eminently sensible thing. A story comes out about how copyright term extension hurts Americans and lots of people who read /. know that Disney was a big push behind the Sonny Bono Act, but /. won't stop giving Disney their money anytime a Star Wars movie comes out. Paramount alienates their core audience by not only not making more Star Trek TV show episodes but working to restrict or shut down fan-made shows. /. readers won't stop seeing Star Trek movies in the theaters (an
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming we should all run our lives on the basis of ideological purity. In fact, if all /. readers stop buying Apple products and watching Star Wars and Star Trek movies, nobody else will notice, and it will have no effect on what Apple, Disney, or Paramount do - particularly if the boycott is not accompanied by some sort of statement. Richard Stallman thinks proprietary software to be immoral, but I'd suspect a very small percentage of /. readers do.
This is partly a variation of the Tr
Re: (Score:2)
A couple years ago, my ex-wife wanted to stream from an iThingie to HDMI, and when we looked it up the adapter to do so was a kind of shocking $50. A whole Apple TV was $65. So we ended up just buying an Apple TV and getting a lot more functionality for not that much more money.
Still wasn't 4k.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true and not true.
The confusion comes in that both Airplay and the Lightning adapter use the platform H.264 encoding to stream the video. The iPad Mini they were testing couldn't handle 1080p MPEG encoding in hardware - but it would stream 1080p pre-encoded video just fine, for instance - it isn't a limitation of the cable throughput.
Re: (Score:2)
If the throughput were unlimited, the iPad would be sending an uncompressed stream. The H.264 is used because the throughput is limited.
Re: (Score:1)
You've clearly never seen over-air streaming. There's no point in 4k.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
it is 1080p without HDR.
Only select 4K sets support HDR. It may be the only reason to get 4K before OLEDs become reasonably priced.
Re: (Score:2)
Only select 4K sets support HDR
If by "select" you mean the majority of 4K 2016 TVs over $500 and the majority of 4K TVs period to be sold in 2017, sure...
And I guess it may depend on your definition of "reasonable", but 2017 will see some pretty affordable OLEDs from LG.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, I'm not confused... and don't need to walk through any stores, I have (almost) one of every 2016 (and upcoming 2017) 4K TV models in my office. And in fact I am going to LG's offices tomorrow to do some HDR quality analysis on their upcoming OLEDs ;)
I suppose it was a bit of an exaggeration to say "majority" of 4K TVs over $500, though AFAIK all of LG's 2016 support HDR, down to the $499 42UH6100. But other manufacturers haven't been quite as aggressive...
That said, there is a big difference b
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for an informative reply. One of the best I've seen to date.
I too am in the market for a new OLED TV, total nits don't mean much to me if the color etc aren't accurate. A high nit value fluorescent pink screen just doesn't do blue irises justice. Sounds like the Dolby Vision certification is something that will be a decider, unless there's a quality TV line out there that matches those sets without the certification. Calibration can only take a substandard set so far after all.
Re: (Score:1)
I just grepped the summary for 'iOS' and it didn't find a single mention.
You know that Safari is a browser on macOS too, right? And that there is even an iMac shipping with a display better than 4K? To say nothing about plugging 4K displays into Macs that have sufficient hardware to drive them?
Re: (Score:2)
iOS second to last word in TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
And the iPad Pro has a display 2732x2048 pixels in size. It's not quite 3840x2160 (home 4K-class res), but it's still bigger than 1920x1080.
Re: (Score:2)
And 2732x1536 would be for 16:9 content (mostly TV shows, with a few movies).
There are very few TV shows in 4K (mostly Netflix) right now - so for 2.35:1 ratio movies, it would be more like 2732x1162 - really not worth the extra bandwidth required to stream 4K...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, VP9 new and bandwidth efficient? VP9 is a horrible codec in terms of quality for 4K. It may be better than H264, but no one seriously uses H264 for 4K video. The only thing it has going for it over HEVC is that it isn't patent-encumbered.
Re: (Score:2)
And given the ridiculous licensing situation for HEVC patents, that feature alone is enough to make VP9 the better option.
No, it's really not. All patents mean is you have to pay to use the technology.
If a streaming company can provide the same quality at 30% lower bitrate, that translates directly to storage and network costs, which can add up to millions (or in an extreme cast like Netflix, hundreds of millions). Google/Youtube is sacrificing quality in using VP9. If I'm a customer paying a premium to stream a 4K movie, I don't give a crap if the codec is open, I want the best quality I can get.
And I really hope that AV1
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly are one of those silly people who think that PC browser support matters in the overall digital video industry. Those same people thought Theora and VP8 would be killer codecs, not to mention RealMedia and Divx...
In the end all that matters is what the CONTENT PROVIDERS use. The SoC and hardware manufacturers will build in whatever it takes to play back what Netflix, Apple, Amazon, VUDU, etc stream. And eventually what Comcast, Verizon, Dish, DirectTV/AT&T, Time Warner, etc broadcast (all
Meow (Score:1)
640 bytes oughtta be enough for any shaky cat video. -Bill Catts
Re: (Score:1)
I remember ASCII pr0n, oh those wonderful @ signs!
iOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Do any iOS devices even have native (hardware decoding) support of h.265 let alone VP9?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but their resolution doesn't come anywhere near 4K, either.
Re:iOS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dead in the water!? Umm, Ultra HD Blu Rays have been out for almost a year, and streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, Fandango, etc (even DirectTV and Dish have a few) have been using H.265 for UHD streaming for longer than that. All 4K TVs, STBs, and the recent 4K game console updates support H.265 decoding.
It may be a licensing mess, but it's one that *will* get resolved, just as it did with H.264...
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably the same AC I just answered... but what you are saying just isn't true or relevant, sorry. As I said in my other post, I really hope AV1 succeeds, but it's not even done yet, and so it's going to be a while before it gets into the chips that power most TVs, BD players, game consoles, etc.
People who actually work in the industry (as opposed to open source fanboys and academics) have already adopted HEVC as the 4K standard 2-3 years ago. Yes, they may have to pay some fees, but that's the s
Re: (Score:2)
$124M? Really? $124M is a small aqui-hire in the valley these days. Google has spend more than that on dozens of bad ideas that never saw the light of day.
Though as I said, I'm not anti-AV1, I would love to see a superior royaltyf-ree codec. But the reality is AV1 will "exist" when it's in all shipping SoCs. I'm not sure why I am even arguing with a stupid AC, I doubt you even know what SoC means. On the other hand I have already shipped software that streams 4K w/ HEVC in about 20 million devices, an
Web (Score:2, Insightful)
This says more about the sad state of the web than anything else.
Remember the big stink that was made about video support on HTML5? How it was going to make flash obsolete and whatnot?
Well, you should look at a matrix of supported formats for HTML5 video. Long story short, only h.264 is well supported out of the box by every browser (desktop + mobile).
VP9 and Theora are not supported by Edge nor Safari. h.265, IIRC, needs plugins on Firefox and Chrome. The picture is even bleaker on mobile.
Codec support is
Edge supports VP9 (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 10 "Anniversary Update" includes Edge 14, which supports VP9 [windows.com]. That leaves Apple as the holdout supporting only codecs that require payment of a royalty to a patent pool.
Re: (Score:2)
That leaves Apple as the holdout supporting only codecs that require payment of a royalty to a patent pool.
Alternative, that leaves Apple as the holdout of supporting a codec whose intellectual property is not well understood, and might infringe on some submarine patents waiting to surface...
Re: (Score:1)
a codec whose intellectual property is not well understood, and might infringe on some submarine patents waiting to surface...
Exactly how are you sure that there's not some submarine patent waiting to surprise everyone on VP-9 or Theora?
VP8/VP9 free of MPEG LA threat; H.265 has 2 pools (Score:2)
For one thing, back in 2013, Google bought a one-time license from MPEG LA [slashdot.org] to sublicense MPEG LA-administered patents essential to VP8 and VP9.
For another, exactly how are you sure that there's not some submarine patent waiting to surprise everyone on H.265? I'm aware of already more than one patent pool for that codec: MPEG LA administers some patents and HEVC Advance administers others [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple products include H.264 functionality despite the risk of submarine patents covering H.264. Thus Apple can't use the risk of submarine patents as an excuse against VP8 and VP9.
Re: (Score:1)
Thus Apple can't use the risk of submarine patents as an excuse against VP8 and VP9.
Parts of the format are covered by patents held by Google. The company grants free usage of its own related patents based on reciprocity, [slashdot.org] I think that's the answer right there.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that the H.265 intellectual property situation is also unclear...
Re: (Score:1)
The HTML5 video tag is working exactly the way web-embedded video should, with one notable (but minor) difference: the object tag with a MIME type should have been sufficient.
If you need a codec, download a goddamned codec for your hardware/OS platform. If you don't want to, then find a different video and quit crying.
Embedding a flash app as a makeshift codec is NOT the answer. It never was. It never will be. There's a reason I used the term "makeshift", and I definitely meant all of the connotations that
Re: (Score:1)
Plenty of Android phones support VP9.
I'd hope so. Google owns them both.
Welcome back to the format wars! (Score:1)
Back when HTML5 video had been announced, there were multiple competing video formats, mostly Theora and H.264. Theora was the format built by the Xiph organisation, without any patent restrictions or payments. H.264 on the other hand, was built by companies like Apple, or Fraunhofer, and enforces obligatory payments by a patent pool managed by the MPEG LA. As Apple had stakes in it, they obviously only supported H.264.
In the end, the format wars were decided in the favour of H.264, as iphones didn't suppor
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe of note, VP9 and H.265 are fully supported in hardware by Kaby lake processors.
Who needs 4k video? (Score:5, Insightful)
4k is good for video editing, it is good if you watch blockbuster movies on a bigass screen, but for YouTube videos on your computer, really? It is a tech demo, there is little use for it.
To enjoy 4k, you need a monitor that supports it, that is large enough relative to the viewing distance, enough bandwidth and processing power. You also need a 4k source. Few people produce 4k video : it is more expensive, more difficult and the result is only marginally better.
If you manage to check all the boxes, then the browser is the least of your worries.
One day, maybe 4k will actually bring something, but it is a bit too soon. Still, it's interesting how far ahead Apple is when it comes to removing stuff (floppy drive, ethernet port, headphone jack, ...) but not so much when it comes to actually support the technology of the future.
Re: (Score:1)
thats the stuff courage is made of.
Re:Who needs 4k video? (Score:5, Insightful)
To enjoy 4k, you need a monitor that supports it, that is large enough relative to the viewing distance, enough bandwidth and processing power. You also need a 4k source. Few people produce 4k video : it is more expensive, more difficult and the result is only marginally better.
I think you'll find these boxes are checked more and more.
On the consuming side, 4K monitors are coming down in price very quickly and are at the point where it's reasonable for the layperson to get one. 4K makes a notable difference on a 24" monitor at the common 2-3' distance -- anyone who says otherwise has bad eyesight or hasn't used one yet. Bandwidth-wise 4K uses about 20-30mbit, which is a lot of users these days. With H.265 they should be able to drop that number considerably for most videos.
On the production side, 4K video is already becoming increasingly more common on YouTube as the latest inexpensive professional and amateur cameras -- even phones and gopros -- all support 4K. Editing really isn't much different versus 1080p -- it's not like they're using rendering farms to create special effects.
Re: (Score:2)
It just makes me laugh when people talk about 4K encoding from a phone. Why bother? The quality is shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Flipping that video option toggle on the iPhone 6SE, 6s, 6s plus, etc. is so expensive and difficult. I can't believe I was able to accomplish it myself...
Re: (Score:1)
Its a check box for sales people to convince the uninformed they must spend more money on something they will not actually benefit from
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-... [cnet.com]
ALL consumers would benefit with better quality programming , but the race to the bottom is on. Advertising revenue is down, costs are up, so quality is sacrificed to fit into that budget. We get re-runs, "re-boots", reality TV and other complete dro
Re: (Score:1)
4K video is hardly the future, its right up there with 3D TV, Curved Screens, Smart TV.
The reason 4K will succeed is HDR. That actually adds value that people can see. Otherwise, the only thing 4K helps with is addressing some of the shortcomings of those cheap LED/LCD based TVs (smaller pixels means less noticeable artifacts, but they're still there)
Re: (Score:2)
One day, maybe 4k will actually bring something, but it is a bit too soon.
That's all relative. There's these things called early adopters. There's already a hell of a lot of 4K TVs, and if you're inclined 4K monitors which are more likely to benefit from the resolution. The bandwidth isn't too bad, and if it is you can get 4K blurays of popular movies. Processing power is trivial and even a couple of year old computer can do it without hardware support ... which is steadily increasing.
There's also these things called laggards who will only adopt once 100% of content is produced i
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind that the bulk of Apple's Mac lineup uses HiDPI screens these days. The iMac is 4K/5K depending on size, the MacBook is 1440p, the MacBook Pro is 1600p/1800p depending on size, and the Mac Pro was meant to be used with 4K displays. So not only are these Macs all plenty capable of meeting the technical requirements for 4K, but 1080p is outright sub-native
Thanks Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WebM isn't a codec. There are ways to get Safari to decode VP8/9 via a plugin, but they don't have hardware support unlike H.264/5. HEVC has better quality at 4K and better tools than VP9 anyway.
Yeah, but (Score:1)
its specifically blocked, there are both versions (Score:2)
video clip in the article: ... ...
D:\_learning>youtube-dl.exe -F https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
266 mp4 3840x2160 DASH video 11632k , avc1.640033, 24fps, video only, 152.17MiB
313 webm 3840x2160 DASH video 16250k , vp9, 24fps, video only, 175.23MiB
so 4K is indeed just hidden in the YT player, but present in the manifest
Memories... (Score:2)
Brings back memories back when I was editing videos few years back...
Things were working fine and all with the Adobe suite with desktop PCs running Windows 7 or something, when out of the blue one of my bosses caught the Apple bug and decided to buy an iMac and start using Final Cut Pro out of nowhere.
Might not sound like much, but here in Brazil anything Apple related is expensive as hell. It's seen as a luxury.
I mean, it was a great learning experience for me, and we had the extra time since work was plen
Safari? (Score:2)
It's all about conserving bits (Score:2)
No. Not "first world" problems. (Score:1, Insightful)
Closed Source Problems.
Re: (Score:2)
In the "first world" people are not allowed to complain because everything is great. Which is why we needed somebody to finally become president that would make things great again....
Re: (Score:3)
I watch most of my videos in 240 or 480p. Upscaling makes mos of them look good enough
I watch screencasts of tech support scam baiting. The 480p stream is just barely enough to be able to make on-screen text legible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what mobile OS you use. I'm not trying to convince you to use the one I use. But if you like yours so much, why do you care about others? And if you have a legitimate complaint about other non-Apple OSes, then state what those issues are.
Re: (Score:1)
as you insult Android which can play the videos that Apple users are unable to play.
I think it's funny that no one's mentioned that Google now serves a 4K video codec developed by Google that purposefully doesn't have a universal fallback into a standard format, and people complain that Apple Safari can't play it. Not that it matters to me, all streaming quality sucks regardless, I prefer better sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming quality may suck on pocket sized screens. It's not so horrible on a living room screen.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that's the answer right there.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Streaming quality may suck on pocket sized screens. It's not so horrible on a living room screen.
Sorry - hit submit by accident - streaming quality is actually "better" the smaller the screen. Your eyes are only good for so much detail, the smaller the screen, the less you notice that things are bad. Where PQ defects really start showing up are in the larger TV screens, usually over 60".