×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the someday-that-dog-shall-rule-the-world dept.

The Internet 214

jason writes "YouTube has never really been known for streaming videos at a high resolution, but it appears that they are taking early steps at providing higher quality videos. The project was announced last year by the site's co-founder Steve Chen, and now appears to be in the earliest stages of deployment. By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is actually quite noticeable. Not all videos have been converted at this point, but they do have millions upon millions of videos that they need to do."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs??? (5, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625706)

How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs???

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (2, Interesting)

Lord Haw Haw (1248410) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625798)

The cable to Japan [slashdot.org] could help!

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22625818)

With the new Underwater cable.

Seriously... worry more how will your ISP respond to that! Traphic Shaping on HTTP anyone?

Goatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22625828)

Goatse [twofo.co.uk]

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (5, Funny)

j3wwy (848834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625940)

They just have to add more Tubes!

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (0, Redundant)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626056)

You can't just put a dump truck on it you insensitive clod!

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627132)

No YOU have to add the tubes! ;)

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (4, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626024)

By piggy backing on the networks of those poor, overworked ISP's that aren't getting paid by youtube. It's like youtube is stealing that bandwidth by exploiting this loophole.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (4, Informative)

ZerdZerd (1250080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626026)

I hope H.264 will be available in flash soon. Stage6 [stage6.com] had to close because of the expenses in delivering HQ videos, which is bad news.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (5, Informative)

l-ascorbic (200822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626270)

It already is [adobe.com] .

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (5, Informative)

tknd (979052) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626294)

Some guy in the comments on the blog downloaded both formats and they came out in exactly the same size. People here are also commenting that they only changed to support H.264. This means that they do not have higher bandwidth needs, but higher processing needs due to a smarter codec (H.264).

Personally I've played around with x264 and the improvements in quality are pretty impressive with enough encoding time and the right encoding parameters thrown at the encoding process.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (3, Insightful)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626832)

At imeem.com we added h264 support earlier in the year - we pretty much just changed the codec when, but our old video bitrate was already > 768kbit/sec so we had plenty of room to up the resolution and support DVD resolutions.

of course, to get DVD resolution videos to display you need to upload dvd resolution in the first place.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (1)

ischorr (657205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627014)

I've watched the linked-to video several times both with and without the fmt=6 parameter, and they both look identical to me. Same in terms of blurriness, artifacting, and resolution. I've been watching in full-screen and looked at a couple of same-frame examples. In fact, neither one looks as blurry as the "low-quality" example in the guy's blog. At least in this case, is there actually any difference??

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627092)

on2 technologies has the best of both worlds with h264, vp6, vp7, vp8, flash lite3.0 ...

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627202)

They will change from being you(singular)tube.com to being you(plural).com.

Easy-peasy!

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626812)

Hmm... sounds like the internet is about to come down.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (2, Informative)

araemo (603185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626822)

I suspect this is already taken care of.

I use noscript, and instead of giving youtube permanent permissions, I always give it temporary permissions. Well, in recent weeks, I've needed to grant permissions to both youtube.com and ytimg.com to get videos to play, so they seem to be farming out their bandwidth to a caching service.

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (2, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626864)

Are you talking at the server end or client end?

At the client end, as people have said... using H.264 means they can increase the resolution/quality with modest bandwidth increase.

At the server end... well, do you KNOW who owns YouTube now??

Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (1)

bluesmonkey (1250122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627030)

ASCII art needs to make a comeback. Big time.

it can only be a good thing (1)

OrochimaruVoldemort (1248060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625712)

as the media moves toward hi-def, streaming will have to get better. still, it is good to see them taking the first steps

Sweet (5, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625720)

Cause dammit, I want crisp, clear flames when I'm watching a 15 year old set himself on fire!

Re:Sweet (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625876)

Cause dammit, I want crisp, clear flames when I'm watching a 15 year old set himself on fire!
Exactly what I was thinking... well, except my thoughts dealt with 2 girls, a cup of something and corn... but the idea was the same.

Re:Sweet (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625922)

2 girls 1 corn? Is that the newest video?

Re:Sweet (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626256)

wrong site. try youpr0n.com...

Re:Sweet (1)

longacre (1090157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627154)

This is them playing catch-up...homemade scat videos from Brazil were being broadcast in higher definition than YouTube.

Converting (5, Insightful)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625726)

they do have millions upon millions of videos that they need to do.

Really? I would argue that of the millions of videos on the net that I think need to be at a higher quality, very few of them are on YouTube.

Re:Converting (1)

oojimaflib (1077261) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625860)

they do have millions upon millions of videos that they need to do.

Really? I would argue that of the millions of videos on the net that I think need to be at a higher quality, very few of them are on YouTube.

Personally, I find the quality of videos on YouTube to be abysmal.

"Will this help?" I ask myself...

Re:Converting (1)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626046)

they do have millions upon millions of videos that they need to do.

Really? I would argue that of the millions of videos on the net that I think need to be at a higher quality, very few of them are on YouTube.

I have uploaded to Google Video and seen noticeable quality degradation. My original filming was done with a Sony HDR-HD3, and my movies are in 3 formats. (a) HD, (b) DVD, and (c) GoogleVideo. But I can't complain because Google does me a wonderful service by letting me post streaming videos on their services for free. But in terms of quality... some of the scene that I filmed are qualitatively better with HD. I wish this was around 2 years ago. I would have had no reason to burn DVDs for my friends and I.

Re:Converting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626420)

Google does me a wonderful service by letting me post streaming videos on their services for free.

Andy Warhol called to say "sorry RobBebop, but time's up. You blew your five minutes on a Slashdot post."

Re:Converting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626580)

-1? Wow, whoever modded this is completely humor-impaired.

Re:Converting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626866)

I think he's talking about pron, dude.

Re:Converting (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626340)

Bah, I threw out my Youtube ages ago and only watch television now. I also make a point of mentioning it at every possible opportunity on message boards.

iPhone quality? (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625764)

I'd noticed that using the iPhone to view videos on WiFi, gave a notable better picture than the web version. I think the flag is accessing the same video the iPhone makes use of.

AppleTV also makes use of this higher level of quality I believe.

Re:iPhone quality? (4, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625956)

I think it's the resolution difference between the iphone, your tv and your computer monitor. On the iphone or your TV, the resolution is closer to that of youtube, so you don't notice the low quality, whereas on your monitor, they can devote 30 or 40 pixels to the aliasing on the low quality video. I noticed this effect a year and a half ago when watching youtube videos through a computer hooked to a tv - the video looked nearly perfect because of the resolution difference.

Just goes to show you that sometimes, lower quality is better.

Re:iPhone quality? (3, Informative)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626232)

It was widely reported (and by that I mean, Steve Jobs stood up on stage and announced it) that Google were storing all new videos as H.264 (and steadily converting old ones) for both the iPhone/iPod touch and Apple TV.

I would imagine this initiative is related to that.

Re:iPhone quality? (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626306)

I don't think so. I've watch a video on the iPhone and computer side-by-side and the iPhone one is noticeably better. Way more than just aliasing could account for.

Also the iPhone YouTube is native and almost certainly uses MPEG4. Stands to reason that it is different (flash uses VP6).

Re:iPhone quality? (2, Funny)

brentonboy (1067468) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626656)

That is why when I watch full-screen videos on my computer, I always resize the monitor resolution down to as small as it can go beforehand (800x600 for me)--it improves the quality a lot!

Re:iPhone quality? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626708)

on your monitor, they can devote 30 or 40 pixels to the aliasing

It doesn't matter how many pixels there are. The combined content of those 40 pixels will look exactly the same as the equivalent 4 pixels on the smaller screen.

I noticed this effect a year and a half ago when watching youtube videos through a computer hooked to a tv - the video looked nearly perfect because of the resolution difference.

Your TV may look "better" because it's set for lower contrast/saturation/sharpness/etc. You can do the same thing on a high resolution monitor if you really want to.

Alternatively, it could simply be that the upscaling algorithm used by the video player is horrible, causing aliasing artifacts. So, eg. 4X upscaling on your monitor might look worse than non-upscaled video on your TV.

Nope (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627108)

I carefully compared screen and iPhone versions side by side with the same video, some northern lights over the north pole. Some stars in the sky and other details were clearly visible on the iPhone that were not apparent in the web version. The resolution in terms of number of pixels, I think is actually about the same. A lot of that could just come down to compression artifacts but I thought it was interesting there was a noticeable difference.

Re:iPhone quality? (2, Informative)

anotherone (132088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626260)

iPhone loads the higher quality .MP4 video because it can't play .flv - Apple TV probably does the same thing for the same reason.

Re:iPhone quality? (5, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626322)

&fmt=18 gives you the h264 iphone video, also playable in the latest Flash 9.0 r115.
&fmt=6 gives you the comparable quality but higher bitrate Flash video which works on older Flash players.

And &fmt=17 gives you a crappy low bitrate very low resolution mpeg4 video for older/cheaper phones, but it isn't playable in Flash.

Thanks... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627122)

That's exactly what I was wondering, if fmt=6 was giving you the same h.264 encoded video that Flash was playing for you. I see now that's really 18... thanks for the info!

Lawyers will love this (4, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625804)

At the moment the quality is ropey at times, you can say that it's no substitute for a real DVD (When there's a copyrighted file on the site, not that that's allowed).

Once it approaches DVD quality the lawyers will argue it's like DVD on demand.

Re:Lawyers will love this (1)

bryce4president (1247134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627028)

By the time they get to DVD quality on YouTube Blue-Ray will have so much market saturation that the lawyers won't care if its DVD quality, just like the RIAA doesn't care if you make a mixed tape.

Distributed project? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22625814)

Now there's a distributed project idea! Forget cancer, re-encode video chunks!

H.264 on iPhone already (4, Informative)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625838)

iPhone users have been enjoying H.264-encoded YouTube for many months already.

To be frank, I've not been on YouTube.com ever since I've gotten the iPhone. The video quality is SO much better on H.264 than crap^H^H^H^H flash players that it's worth wasting time with it. Plus, you can actually pause, fast-forward, rewind and skip to any point without it failing like flash players always do.

Technically.. (2, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625970)

Flash 9 supports h264 video codec.

Re:Technically.. (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626224)

Knowing Flash, it may or may not be worth it.

Apparently, recently, they've added the ability for video decoding to be hardware-accelerated, but only when the video is fullscreen. I'm still amazed that the vector graphics aren't accelerated, even if it's when Flash is a plugin -- at this rate, we'll have hardware-accelerated SVG in Firefox before we'll have properly hardware-accelerated Flash.

Now, when YouTube has the option to also serve the video in a straight mp4 container (or similar)...

Re:Technically.. (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626350)

Flash isn't hardware accelerated because it risks breaking content already on the net, IIRC. The problem is that drivers may or may not render the same content in the same way, and designers who rely on pixel-perfect rendering will find that their stuff breaks depending on the vagaries of hardware and/or drivers.

Re:Technically.. (2, Informative)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626706)

Oh? http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Astro [adobe.com]

Not only does FlashPlayer 10 have 2D/3D acceleration, but also supports gpu's. Search youtube for Flash Player Astro for videos of it in action - its pretty cool.

Re:H.264 on iPhone already (4, Informative)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625986)

Youtube is free, and it's not worth $400 just for a little piece of black plastic that plays the same H.264 video that VLC and mplayer have had for years.

Also Apple's Quicktime MPEG4 library has some significant deficiencies; they don't implement the entire standard.

Re:H.264 on iPhone already (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627002)

How can you go through life being so unloved?

Youtube is as-free on the iPhone. And the 400$ NON-plastic thing actually lets me avoid dragging a 1000$+ laptop around, a phone and a music player all at once. So, what's your point?

My point was that YouTube has been converting their videos to H.264 for MONTHS. In fact, they've even mentioned months ago that every new videos uploaded to YouTube was being simultaneously H.264 -encoded on-the-fly. Initially, iPhone users have seen the benefits before other viewers because it's got a dedicated YouTube browser app (wich does full screen) (aka, non-flash based).

I dont hate you because you dont drive the same car I do. Go hate someone else.

Re:H.264 on iPhone already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626068)

Much before that, http://vtap.com/ [vtap.com] was providing video for mobile.

So that's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22625858)

~$ youtube-dl "http://youtube.com/watch?v=xQzVIbWBcsA&fmt=6" && mplayer xQzVIbWBcsA.flv

Trash by any other name... (-1, Flamebait)

tringtring (1227356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625870)

Putting a shine on trash will still make it trash, so I'm wondering using what metric NewTube is selecting the videos to be re-encoded

To state the obvious (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625894)

I have a plenty fast internet connection with Verizon. Every site works great. But whether a YouTube video will cache fast enough for flawless playback- that's always up for grabs. I'd say they should take care of their own bandwidth issues before upgrading.

Secondly- If they've got millions of videos that still need converting- I'm assuming that doesn't mean upscaling horrid quality videos- does that mean they've been keeping the originals this entire time?

Re:To state the obvious (3, Informative)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625990)

According to some reports, yes, they have kept the originals.

Re:To state the obvious (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626182)

According to some reports, yes, they have kept the originals.
Which leads to the next question:
If I delete a video from YouTube, do they delete the source file?

Re:To state the obvious (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626280)

That's a valid question that deserves an answer. But can you think of any compelling reasons why they wouldn't ? What would be in it for Youtube to keep them besides wasted storage space ? (and in the event they used them for whatever purpose - the possibility for litigation should the original copyright holder claim infringement) ?

Re:To state the obvious (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627162)

Looks like I found the answer:
http://www.youtube.com/t/terms [youtube.com]

6. Your User Submissions and Conduct

C. ...by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license ... The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted.

Re:To state the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627016)

You do realize YouTube is owned by Google?

And Google video? (4, Interesting)

zebslash (1107957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625904)

What about Google Video? Would that work too?

Quality problem (2, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 6 years ago | (#22625934)

Note to YouTube: forcing your users to upload a crappy resolution compressed/downsized video, and then upsampling it to a higher resolution, does NOT produce a high-quality video. How about allowing people to upload decent quality videos in the first place??

Re:Quality problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22625994)

youtube does not alter the original video. when they upgrade, they will re-convert all the previous uploads from the originals.

Re:Quality problem (1)

Phil246 (803464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626002)

How do you know that's not their next step, once testing of the download part has been completed?
It makes sense from their perspective to test with what they have already.

Wow, like what they have been doing all this time? (4, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626178)

What do you think they are converting you lamebrain? They kept the originals, so no upsampling needed (doesn't really work anyway), they just RE-encode the original.

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626248)

And those originals are still limited to something like 50 or 100 megs.

The point is that the originals are already poor quality. Re-encoding crap will give you crap, period.

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626432)

Size doesn't determine quality. Size + length determines quality.

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626770)

Size doesn't determine quality. Size + length determines quality.
Don't forget the motion!!

Umm, what were we talking about again?

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22627182)

We are discussing the claim [here [slashdot.org] ] that Youtube somehow "forced" users to upload poor quality video and that therefore any conversion process is guaranteed to fail. It was suggested [here [slashdot.org] ] that even if Youtube retained the original file uploaded that because Youtube has a size restriction on uploaded video, they are limiting the quality of the video. This is true in an extreme view of the situation but even given the file size limit, a user could have found a balance and uploaded high-quality video udner the size limit.

At the end of the day, it looks like most people don't know what they're talking about - as is par for the course around here.

"The point is that the originals are already poor quality. Re-encoding crap will give you crap, period."
That's just egregious. This is the statement of someone who knows a little but doesn't have the skills to put it together. Knowledge doesn't lead to intellect. He knows there's a size limit but he thinks this means users were forced to meet the size limit by compressing their video; unable to make the leap from that bit of knowledge to realizing that users could have limited the length of the crappy home movies they were uploading. In conclusion, this guy [slashdot.org] is dumb.

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (2, Informative)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626976)

And those originals are still limited to something like 50 or 100 megs.
You are correct that videos uploaded directly via web browser are limited to 100 megabytes [youtube.com] . However, using the (Windows-only) multi-file uploader client allows videos of up to 1GB in size [youtube.com] .

I certainly wish I had known about this before I spent a decent amount of time re-encoding motion jpegs to get them under 100MB.

Re:Wow, like what they have been doing all this ti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626538)

Most people have to deal with YouTube's 100 MB video limit. No matter how they try to encode a ~8-10 minute video, they won't be able to get something in high quality at 640x480. Until recently, even YouTube's Help Center recommended using 320x240 mpeg4 at 30 fps!

Re:Quality problem (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626556)

Well, actually you can upload high quality video now, but it gets converted to the low quality flash video that you'll play back later. As near as I can tell, they do keep the original upload. So they still have the original to convert to whatever their higher quality format is.

There's already a name for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626010)

It's called cable TV. You know what they say about a polished turd...

*ducks*

High Quality? I think Not. (4, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626062)

When Youtube upgrades the quality of their VIDEOS and not the quality of the video FILES ... then I'll be interested. For now, as so many others have said ... Youtube is adequate for watching 15 year olds set themselves on fire ;)

Re:High Quality? I think Not. (3, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626460)

... actually there is high quality content Youtube -- the copyrighted stuff.

Re:High Quality? I think Not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626498)

Even the self-immolating kids are copyrighted.

Re:High Quality? I think Not. (2, Informative)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626992)

You must not be aware of it, but just about every video on YouTube is copyrighted.

Re:High Quality? I think Not. (4, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626816)

Actually I would argue that there is plenty of worthwhile content on YouTube (and I'm not talking about unauthorized uploads of TV shows). The thing is that YouTube is like the Internet at large: there is lots of crap so if you just randomly poke around you will of course see a predominance of crap.

If you browse YouTube a bit, and subscribe to the channels that are actually worthwhile, you will quickly build up a feed of interesting stuff with new videos every day. You can use featured videos to get some ideas of new channels to consider. On the other hand, using "most viewed" and "currently watching" to find good stuff is a waste of time. As a random example of something "worthwhile" (in my opinion), consider Wallstrip [youtube.com] --a show that does profiles on companies and stock trends, and is infused with sarcasm and wit. There are also channels that discuss science, that do decent original comedy, there is a national geographic channel, etc.

Frankly I think YouTube is dropping the ball a bit by not providing a more useful method of finding the best content. An Amazon-like "people who subscribe/rate like you also like..." would help alot. Just as Slashdot uses various tricks (moderation, friends/foes, etc.) to bring attention to the quality material, YouTube should work harder to bring the good material to the top. The current star-ratings, comment-ratings, and ranking-by-viewing are not working very well. Frankly I don't care about the ratings of YouTube at large; I care about the ratings of a finite subset of like-minded users.

Same great pixels, more bits please (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626102)

YouTube has never really been known for streaming videos at a high resolution,

The problem isn't necessarily resolution- it's the unbelievably low bitrates, and the fact that they insist on re-encoding everything that's uploaded to them. It's apparently possible to upload FLV in a very precise way such that they don't re-encode, but they could make it a lot easier (and it's to their advantage- every video given to them ready-to-go is a video they don't have to waste incoming bandwidth, temporary disk storage, and bandwidth on.)

What youtube *should* be doing is offering paid accounts which allow for higher bitrate videos; say, a low-end for the camwhores who want better pixels for their whining, a mid-level for guys like Will It Blend, and a top-end account for big companies that want to push their ads out on Youtube. Will It Blend, for example, would probably plunk down $20/month to get better videos.

Sadly, though- companies like blip.tv have already filled the niche of high-quality videos, and they're getting attacked left and right by other sites like metafilter which already does revenue sharing...and there are a billion and one embedded FLV hosting sites...

Re:Same great pixels, more bits please (1)

Klaruz (734) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626950)

Sadly, though- companies like blip.tv have already filled the niche of high-quality videos, and they're getting attacked left and right by other sites like metafilter which already does revenue sharing...and there are a billion and one embedded FLV hosting sites...

I think you meant metacafe [metacafe.com] the video site, and not metafilter [metafilter.com] the community weblog.

That aside, I once read somewhere that web 2.0 companies don't want paying customers. They want eyeballs, they're easier to get than cash, and much less of a hassle. Google being an advertising company, that's doubly true.

Re:Same great pixels, more bits please (1)

tilandal (1004811) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627110)

That doesn't make any business sense. The ones who stress the bandwidth are the viewers not the up-loaders. I'm sure Coke would love to have unlimited hosting for high res videos for just a few dollars a month. I don't think Google enjoys paying for all that extra bandwidth.

Conversion (2, Insightful)

Tavor (845700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626104)

I must say, it looks nice for the most part. Though I would prefer my videos be higher resolution to begin with, not "converted" down then back up -- it would prevent those little slight things you see in the video.

CPU Loading (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626414)

High-resolution is great and wonderful, but what about the unwashed masses with older systems? I'd rather see a video play smoothly in medium resolution, rather than see it stutter in high resolution. The newer codecs seem to choke on older systems. My Mac can handle MPEG-2 without problems, but it has difficulty with some of the newer videos.

Re:CPU Loading (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626686)

This has more to do with the fact that the OS X Flash Player is a steaming pile of crap, and will load even a reasonably powerful system to 100% for no reason whatsoever.

*VLC* of all things plays FLVs considerably more efficiently than Adobe's official Flash Player.

Eh? Maybe it's just me. (2, Informative)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626508)

I couldn't see any difference in quality between the regular version and the "fmt=6" version of the skating dog.

Re:Eh? Maybe it's just me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626968)

Yep, it's just you. You couldn't see the blockiness, the graininess, or the loss of color information in the low-def version?

Nice (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626512)

It is nice to see that they kept the originals around.
Wonder if other sites like flickr, myspace, and facebook keep the original pictures around that are uploaded or if they're just converted (resized) once and thrown away.
Now if only they could get the audio and video in sync.

I already mourn the loss of stage6 (4, Interesting)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626520)

Now stage6 has gone, there's no site that provides decent quality streaming content. Youtube should get rid of the 10 min length cap and up their quality to fill the gap in the market.

Obviously, when I say market, I mean enormous money hole...

Re:I already mourn the loss of stage6 (2, Funny)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626670)

I think YouPorn.com has this enormous gap / money hole thing you talk about filled already...

Re:I already mourn the loss of stage6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22626744)

Say not so - http://www.dailymotion.com/ [dailymotion.com]

Re:I already mourn the loss of stage6 (2, Insightful)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627112)

Yup. Same here.

Funny thing is that I would gladly pay $40/month for a site like Stage6. I pay around $60/month currently for cable television but rarely watch it because the shows I like are inconvenient to watch. Yeah, there's MythTV and Tivo, but there's rarely a time when I'll sit down and plan what I'm going to watch. I'd much rather browse and get that instant gratification. It would be great if the producers of these shows could come to some advertising/subscription agreement. I have looked at iTunes, but the selection there was dismal.

Someone figured out how to do it before (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626718)

Seen this?

lossless YouTube [youtube.com]

hand typed link, if it doesn't work, google:
HOWTO: upload lossless youtube

Already done (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626722)

vimeo.com has had hi-def for a long time, in fact I don't think you can even upload lo-def there.

Oh, that kind of quality... (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626794)

you're able to watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video)

Damn, and I thought that parameter would make the videos funnier.

Re:Oh, that kind of quality... (1)

nitio (825314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626958)

That's fmt=42. You can also try fmt=69 for the Porntube version of the video. The only problem is that it always add scenes from the 2 girls 1 cup.

very low frame rate (1)

totalctrl (974993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22626900)

That's high quality? The frame rate is still to low to be acceptable. What's wrong with all the blended frames? Is it a problem in their deinterlacing processing?

More! (1)

w1d3 (1118983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627000)

I hope that porntube and youporn will follow their example as well!

Aw man! (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627050)

The DSL provider for my area is finally solid enough to handle Youtube videos reliably. I finally felt like I was part of this internet community for the first time. But now if everybody starts uploading bigger files to the web, I can see myself having to go back to living in the "Downloading, Please Wait" ghetto.

Video quality means very little to me. I mean, how high-resolution does anybody really need John Stewart's head?


-FL

If there's any difference... (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22627172)

I don't see it.

But it looks like the Skateboarding Dog video is pretty poor quality [imageshack.us] to begin with. Big blurred deinterlaced frames are still blurred deinterlaced frames, regardless of the number of bits you throw at it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?