Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Introduces 60fps Video Support
jones_supa (887896) writes Google's YouTube announced that it's adding two new features that will especially benefit people who enjoy watching gameplays and those who stream games live. Most excitingly, the site is rolling out 60 frames per second video playback. The company has a handful of videos from Battlefield Hardline and Titanfall (embedded in the article) that show what 60fps playback at high definition on YouTube looks like. As the another new feature, YouTube is also offering direct funding support for content creators — name-checking sites like Kickstarter and Patreon — and is allowing fans to 'contribute money to support your channel at any time, for any reason.' Adding the icing on the cake, the website has also a number of other random little features planned, including viewer-contributed subtitles, a library of sound effects and new interactive info cards.
Sorry, but I can't upload. My ISP is absolute shit, and keeps insisting I upgrade to the next tier package which gives me 2MB upload rather than 512k. Guess my millions of potential viewers will miss out.
And don't get me started on streaming HD content!
Thanks but no thanks, Google. Maybe you should stop reinventing web video at a pace that others can't keep up with, and actually wait a little while for others to catch up? It's not like broadband in most regions is good enough to sustain all the stupid pie-in-the-sky bells and whistles anyway. Let the world catch up to the sands you're constantly shifting and maybe improve some of your other tech properly instead of change for change's sake. Don't try to dictate what the world wants before it's ready for it.
let's say you have a good steem and then some say want to keep it you better give us an cut / fee or we will take some who will and your subs will have a hard time seeing your feed.
I'm glad civilization brought us the ability to watch 60fps fps played by someone else.
And at $10 GB makes the cost of doing it very high.
of buffering to watch a five minute 240p video, I don't see how this is useful. The usual poor user experience with YouTube is to put the window on a second monitor and letter it stutter slowly through the video.
Now if only YT could stop defaulting to 240p on every video I play...
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
People could explain something with 3 lines of text, but instead they'll make a 20 minute video about it.
They're playing catch-up to Twitch.
Wow, that sucks. I was instantly able to watch 1080p with no buffering. 100mb/s for a few seconds then half of the time-line was buffered about 5 seconds after I clicked play. Too bad my ISP doesn't have a YouTube CDN. My YouTube comes from a PoP in Chicago over my ISP's transit.
I wonder how fast YouTube really is. If only I could afford the faster tiers, even if just to test.
I've downloaded the Titanfall Gameplay video and mplayer definitely says it's 30 fps, so I'm guessing it's bullshit.
VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 30.000 fps 3000.0 kbps (366.2 kbyte/s) Also, even if it worked - what's the point of having a 60 fps video for a console game that can barely get 30?
why would anyone want this? There are cases where 60fps makes a difference, but Youtube video aren't among them.
I've downloaded the Titanfall Gameplay video and mplayer definitely says it's 30 fps, so I'm guessing it's bullshit.
VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 30.000 fps 3000.0 kbps (366.2 kbyte/s)
Also, even if it worked - what's the point of having a 60 fps video for a console game that can barely get 30?
WTF, why are you going on about some video file you downloaded?
The article talks about YOUTUBE support for 60fps videos.
Games for classic game consoles (Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super NES) routinely keep a stable 60 fps.
Don't tell me there is no capitalistic market principle here, one that
should be promising, that thus far has went unnoticed by you!
I thought by law video has to be 24 or 29.666. Isn't this what is MAPP law?
He is talking about the fact that you can download, more or less, any video from YouTube using a third party web site...
But those web sites don't always have access to every version of the video on YouTube and in this case, for sure don't have access to the 60fps versions...
So he is watching the 60fps version on the web site and downloading the 30fps version and getting all confused...
He downloaded the video so he could look at its technical data. I watch many YT videos, but I never stream them.
Streaming seems aimed at the impatient, but I think it takes more patience to sit through buffering than to download the whole thing and then watch.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I have Verizon FIOS and I haven't had a single problem with Youtube, or Netflix for that matter.
I'm waiting for the obligatory nutcase to drop an insane "human eye can't see more than 30fps" comment.
The human eye can't see more than 24fps. What a waste
Because YouTube has been fucking with video quality for the past few years.
When you were able to get a 1080p MP4 with its audio stream included in the file, transmitted over HTTP (format 37), it didn't buffer or stutter while seeking. Last September, when they changed it so that anything over 1280x720 required the use of the disgusting DASH (which downloads separate MP4 and M4A audio streams) for anything higher, browser-based YouTube experience started to suck. (They also made it so that any audio uploaded at 256kbps was nuked and was only available in 128kbps M4A) Fuck having to download/remux formats 137 and 140 back together in order to get the same ability to seek through a video that we used to be able to get directly from the web browser.
The problem is that without downloading the video and analyzing it, you can't tell anything other than that the qualitative experience sucks compared to what it was a couple of years ago.
The DASH files for 1280x720 and 1920x1080 are 60 fps for the 7SRTEXSpcyI video.
Duration: 00:03:29.97, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 5511 kb/s
Stream #0:0(und): Video: h264 (High) (avc1 / 0x31637661), yuv420p, 1920x1080 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 5503 kb/s, 60 fps
News for nerds: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's Slashdot handle is "dreamchaser".
I can't think of another explanation for why Youtube isn't throttled for you.
Oh please...stop with the FUD. I've yet to see any evidence of throttling. Now it could be because I have FIOS Quantum and an over 80 Mbps connection, but like I said I have no issues. Also, I work in IT security as a consultant, not for the FCC so you can stop with the insults :)
Then links to videos that are supposed to demonstrate 60fps except they don't appear to.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I take it back. I only have the 50Mbs.
It was a nice boost over the previous 15Mbs. For everything except Youtube.
Usually the first couple videos play well, but after that... Long pauses every few seconds.
I look forward to the new 6fps mode.
Sorry. No one deserves being called a FCC commissioner.
Must be from consoles because they "support silky smooth 30fps" this includes as a marketing point. And 60fps is "too much for the human eye to handle," as droves of console users say. So no big surprise, they're just catering to them.
Om, nomnomnom...
Unfortunately YouTube's 60fps support pokes a pretty big hole in the current state of Firefox.
To play back 60fps videos you need to be using the HTML5 player and stream the 1080p version. The Flash player will not work here.
The problem? Firefox doesn't support Media Source Extensions, which is what YouTube uses for DASH adaptive streaming. Mozilla's developers are working on the matter, but only for WebM for now. H.264/MP4 MSE support will have to wait.
The end result is that 1080p60 playback works great on Chrome, Safari, and even IE11, but is all but useless on Firefox.
I don't want to slag the Firefox devs too badly (hey, it's a free browser), but once again FOSS orthodoxy is getting in the way of practical feature development. H.264 support took an embarrassingly long time to come, and now Firefox is the only browser that that can't play back 1080p60 on YouTube.
Between this and their constant attempts to turn Firefox into a Chrome-alike, it's getting harder and harder to justify using Firefox.
Only 1080p videos support 60fps. Presumably Google's logic is that if you don't have the bandwidth to support 1080p, then you also don't have the bandwidth to support 60fps.
there must be some high quality or fast video format that I am not aware of. TV shows are filmed at 29.97 FPS and movies are at 23.976 FPS.
Ran some tests back when CRTs commonly had >80FPS capability and we had enough computer power to run them. For most of the test subjects 85 was about all that they could readily discern. There were some, though, that could see the benefit at 100.
It's kind of like the IndyCar ad on NBCSN, where the passenger is mostly screaming and Mario Andretti (CART, F1 champ, Indianapolis 500, NASCAR winner, amoung the items on his resume) is observing the dandelions in the infield and the ladies in the stands, apparently in slow motion. Some just process visual data faster than others.
At 9 ft from a 72 Inch Flatscreen with 720 dpi and 30 fps video the human eye will be completely satisfied and won't be able to see an improvement of 1080 dpi and 60 fps will be unreal to watch. Still, they keep selling the technology that more is more when its not, and they know damn well they have reached the limit of saturation with our human function.
Do you by chance design game consoles?
Flash player, 1080p, 30fps.
HTML5 player, 720p max, doesn't look any different. Sadly the HTML5 player does not report video fps.
> So he is watching the 60fps version on the web site and downloading the 30fps version and getting all confused...
Their "Stats for nerds" (right-click on video) says the 60fps is playing at 30fps. Changing to Full HD made it reach some 53fps, but only for a few moments.
"I'm waiting for the obligatory nutcase to drop an insane "human eye can't see more than 30fps" comment."
Actually, I just checked the frame rate and reality only runs at 48 fps, tops. Anything higher is just theoretical.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
60fps is unreal to watch? Try telling that to all the people who grew up watching NTSC.
I just tried the Titanfall video on my TiVo's Youtube app and I did get 59.97 fps (TiVo is set to pass-through 1080p, and TV switches from 23.97 fps to 59.97 fps for this video).
If your eye is tracking a moving object on the screen you'll need much higher frame rate to see it without motion blur.
On my setup, Windows 7, Firefox 30, the demo videos display just fine in 60 fps, 1080 p, using Flash.
You get buffering on Youtube? Have you told your ISP - there's got to be something seriously wrong there.
There's a way to do video compression so that frame rate doesn't matter. It's called Framefree. (PowerPoint, unfortunately). With that, you can crank up the playback frame rate as high as the output device can go.
Framefree was developed at Kerner Optical, which was spun off from Lucasfilm. Kerner went out of business a few years ago, and although there was a web site "framefree.us" and even a browser plug-in, it never caught on.
The idea is that the intermediate frames between key frames are mesh-based morphs, rather than MPEG-type block updates. Compression is compute-intensive, and playback requires a GPU. You can generate as many intermediate frames between keyframes as you want. Intermediate frame generation means interpolating the mesh points and then warping the image pieces to fit. So not only can you have very high display frame rates, you can also have ultra-slow slow motion. No MPEG-type blockiness, either.
While Framefree compression never caught on (probably because a high performance GPU in every set top box and DVD player was too expensive back then) the technology is used in sports programming to generate ultra-slow slow motion without using ultra-high frame rate cameras. Maybe it will make a comeback in the era of "4K" video with 60FPS frame rates.
"As the another new feature"
Will the "another new feature" be proofreading?
Be aware - the demo videos in the article are indeed encoded at 60 fps, however if you're using Flash, YouTube will only render them at 30 fps. Apparently this is a limitation with the Flash plugin and Chrome with Flash disabled/missing will run using HTML5 at the full 60 fps. Firefox is supposed to work as well when using HTML5 but apparently it's having difficulties (unable to verify myself).
I guess this is another reason to hope Flash dies soon (which interestingly enough it still hasn't).
I don't think more fps adds that much more data. Changes between frames are less likely in 20ms than in 40ms, so the differential encoding algorithm also outputs less data.
What I'd like to know- I uploaded 1080p 60fps videos to youtube in the past, and youtube made them 30fps. Do I have to reupload them or does Youtube have the originals and will they reprocess them to provide 60fps versions?
When I open youtube.com or do a search, Firefox hangs for 90 seconds while loading the page. When playing a video, moving the playback point usually results in a black screen. Playback stutters way too often.
I've just watched the video in the article, 720p videos also clearly play at 60fps. 480 and lower all played at 30fps.
The video bitrate was around 4 or 5 mbps, maybe they will add a 30/60 fps selector in the future?
I was waiting for this for some time :)
Presumably Google's logic is that if you don't have the bandwidth to support 1080p, then you also don't have the bandwidth to support 60fps.
My PlayStation doesn't support anywhere near 1080p, yet it gets silky smooth 60fps in the fighting game [i]Tobal No. 1[/i].
People who grew up wtih NTSC associate high-motion video with soap opera writing and soap opera acting.
Hell has frozen over. I've been anticipating standard 60fps support on Youtube for years and it's finally come. My bitterness is gradually fading...
I wonder if existing videos at 60fps already on Youtube will be adjusted to support the feature.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Youtube has different versions of each video in different formats and/or different resolutions. So it really depends of which one he downloaded.
Mada mada dane.
There is a lot of TV available at 60fps. For example, the people with cable and the pirates could enjoy Game of Thrones at 1080i60. While interlaced content is quite anachronistic and useless with LCDs, there are deinterlacers which preserve some of the information in the higher frame rate. Interlaced 60fps may then look smoother than what is provided in deinterlaced 30fps format. Apart from shows, there is quite a lot of other content on TV which is 60fps in my experience, though I have mainly seen interlaced and standard-def in the places I've been.
Shit, man, I forgot that one can get 50mbps broadband at all places in the world! I mean surely, there are no such things as DSL or dial-up anymore, are there?
I see Video ID, Dimensions, Resolution, Volume, Stream Type, Mime Type, DASH, and Bandwidth.
Voracious Dipstick Prostitute
How about some 50fps videos? Actually, I'd settle for 25fps.
Maybe the videos are 30FPS but the player is doing some interpolation to achieve 60FPS, like modern TV displays.
> Wonder if it depends on the stream?
I don't know. FF shows fps, Chromium (Chrome) does not. FF stats look nerdier (less cleaned up, just like a debug).
It also seems 60 fps occurs only at HD resolutions.
It was a joke. Read carefully.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Well, they are only a few months behind on 4chan. But hey, its not that bad being worse than them.
Ubuntu 14.04 still only plays at 10 FPS in full screen mode. Bastards. Every streaming video site *except* YouTube plays flawlessly in full screen mode.
It depends on the display device.
VDP (Video Display Processor) or VDC (Video Display Controller) is a term used for the Commodore 64 VIC-II, the TMS9918A VDC in the ColecoVision, CreatiVision, and MSX, the Master System VDP, the Game Gear VDP, the Sega Genesis VDP, the NES PPU, the Super NES PPU, and similar chips that operate by overlaying sprites on top of a grid of tiles.
There is lots on there. A big bit of content that'll do 60fps no problem is video games. Lots of channels that feature games in various forms. So they'll be able to show content at 60fps no issue.
Also many AVCHD cameras do 60fps these days. It is part of the AVCHD 2.0 spec, but some like Panasonic did it before the spec update. So a lot of individuals have cameras that'll shoot 60fps no issue, and if Youtube will take it, they can upload it as is.
You are correct. Please allow me to amend my assertion: Though high motion is the rule for live news and sports programming, people associate high motion scripted programming with soap operas.
I LOL'd, don't worry. I would have modded your original retort as Funny were it not for obvious reasons (having already posted in the thread).
Now if YT could just play 240p for longer than 10s without freezing I'd be excited. (It even pops up an idiotic banner saying "Video freezing? Click here." and then proceeds to explain how I should close other applications or upgrade my internet service.)
Certainly doesn't seem to; they've just halved the bits-per-frame by the look of it.
The image quality is just... awful.
"To put it really simply," Wojcicki said, "any viewer can show any creator their viewer their love by tipping them any amount between $1 and $500."
Please put it even more simply.