Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Opens Up 60fps To Everyone
jones_supa writes Four months ago YouTube promised support for 60 frames per second videos. Back then, the feature was limited to some selected demonstration clips. Now the capability to upload 60fps videos has been opened to everyone. By searching YouTube, a lot of interesting high-FPS material can already be found. For now, some caveats apply though. To watch the clips at 60fps you currently need to use Chrome (further browser support is on the way) and be sure to select 720p60 or 1080p60 from the settings menu of the video player. A fair amount of decoding power is also required, so you will need good hardware. In addition, YouTube says that the content format will be only available on "motion-intense" videos, and the average cat video may not be detected as such. Of course gaming will be the most obvious genre that can take advantage of the higher frame rate.
These kind of features ("new thing, works on Chrome, doesn't work on Firefox") are quick way to get rid of excess marketshare.
Anyone know if Firefox is going to get support?
A Google website only working with Chrome.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Just absolutely shocked. *LOL*
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I posted a ("motion-intense") 1080p60 video several years ago in anticipation of this advent. I've been keeping an eye on said video to see if Youtube has been busy enabling the improved framerate for preexisting videos which did run at 60fps before being systematically halved. So far, no dice.
If they're not going to go through the trouble themselves, then they need to give users the option to swap 30fps versions of old videos for 60fps iterations without resetting all of their views, likes, dislikes etc.
And unless the Net Neutrality fight is successful, entirely pointless for those not paying the extra fee.
Could you give some links to interesting material in 60FPS? I found just games.
There are some problems with this.
1. This is not optional for videos that support it. If it was processed as 60fps video, then 1080p and 720p streams will only be served as 60fps.
2. Chrome has an outstanding crippling bug for months now in H/W decoding: https://code.google.com/p/chro... with the only viable workaround "disable HW decoding"
Those two combined together mean that 1080p60 is unwatchable on decent but not sparkling-new laptops under Windows, dropping frames / freezing constantly.
I really hope, people are going to re-upload all those C64 and Amiga demos that just stutter like hell in 25/30fps in their original 50/60fps glory!
AS the USA is a 3rd world backwater for internet speeds.
it seems Comcast is now playing the "congestion" bullshit claim that they cant do anything about it. in the evenings. Freaking only getting ISDN speeds after 8pm.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
24 frames per second ought to be enough for anybody.
I also steer people away from it. Fuck poison. We don't need Google to be the new Microsoft.
Until they don't support all browsers I don't care about 60fps.
Totally agree. Support all browsers!
I'm particularly upset about the lack of support for Lynx!
Everyone should just be glad that it doesn't require Google+ integration. Seems like just about everything they do now is getting tied to that millstone in one way or another.
Apparently you missed the memo... Google+ is being deemphasized, and the guy behind it is no longer with the company.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9...
Older games often used on/off/on/off/on/off flicking effects on sprites.
It's cases like that where you really need 60fp (or better still, native FPS) videos for the effects to show correctly.
I'm not convinced Google care tho, you already have to upscale the resolution to avoid them being destroyed by 240p encoding.
Would be really nice to have a 'retro content' option when you upload, so that Google / YouTube take care of these things (even providing properly interpolated versions for users not viewing at 60fps) to ensure that important detail isn't lost If you look at how long it's taken for them to even give us 60fps support that still seems like a pipe dream tho.
I'd use Chrome but honestly Ad Block Plus has worked way better on Firefox then Chrome for me. Still it's kinda neat to see a 60fps video, not sure if it's really necessary since the current crop of stuff looks great when I compare it to the stuff I used to watch on the TV in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's. Better is always good I guess for online video, that being said I'd much rather have locally stored videos for when the internet goes down.
"high-FPS material"
60 FPS is not "high FPS", it's more of a standard, though not even that considering the GoPro 4 toy camera does 120 FPS @ 1080 and 30 FPS @ 4K.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If I can't see it by telnetting to port 80 it isn't there!
I don't get it. Why do the programmers working on browsers even write video support at all? No, I'm not saying browsers shouldn't support embedded video. But why does every browser have to reinvent that wheel? Isn't HTML, CSS and Javascript enough to have to support? I would think they would just link in libraries from a project which IS a video player like mplayer of xine or vlc or something. Then they should support whatever formats and framerates that player supports for free!
Those fuckers can barely keep up with the existing standards. There's no way in hell the neighborhood loop can support this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Of course, the new GoPro can record in 4K, so if you're a professional who gets more than a couple hundred hits on any given video, you're probably still better off hosting and serving your own video. Then you wouldn't need to worry about your service's processing mangling your video, or them crapping ads all over it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
For YouTube, make sure you set it to 720p or higher.
Classic video game consoles run at 240p60. How would someone process a video to take advantage of 60 fps if the source itself isn't high definition?
upload the video to your own website and host it yourself
If someone does as you recommend, what should he do to help other people find his video? YouTube shows only other YouTube videos in the recommendation column, as is its right.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you're including a proprietary codec, why not have the old ones from flash video (FLV)?, or H263 proper.
Because patent pools charge separate royalties for each codec. If you include an H.263 class codec (H.263 proper, Sorenson Spark, or MPEG-4 ASP), you have to pay the royalties for that on top of the royalties for more widely used codecs like H.264.
or 360p at 60fps. The feature is interesting by itself, so it shouldn't be tied to HD when you don't always have the CPU or bandwith for it.
Hell, 240p and 144p with 256 kbps sound track is another thing I want, very often the music or speech is way more important than the piqué of the image. Countless bandwith and megajoules are wasted on the video and the sound still sucks. Can't watch people speaking without MP3-like artifacts. In the days of analog television, the audio had full quality.
I must be an old geezer stuck in older (analog) days of video and TV. I didn't know that cameras can record video at 60 FPS. I'm so used to 29.97 FPS NTSC and 24 FPS for film movies. Ok, I'm showing my age. lol
Because it seems to me that "everyone" is only the idiots who use Chrome. Every other browser don't have 60fps enabled videos.
> the content format will be only available on "motion-intense" videos, and the average cat video may not be detected as such
Clearly you haven't met my cats.
More like you need good decoders and accelerated players. The 9 year old computer I have plays 1080p60 fine in mplayerc, but struggles and craps at "faster than ever" 360p HTML5 and Flash video streams.
I'm so sick of 'needing good hardware' to overcompensate for developer incompetence. The sad part is, they only bother with these optimizations on mobile platforms
Frames are similar to each other (this is a big way that H.264 gets compression) and the more FPS you have, the more similar the frames are since each is a smaller time slice away from the last one. So you may not need a whole lot more bandwidth.
A good example is AVCHD, that's the H.264 camera format that is popular with consumer and pro cameras. The 2.0 spec supports 30fps and 60fps. At 30fps you store data at 24mbps, at 60fps you store it at 28mbps. Same visual quality, only 4mbps more to get the extra 30fps.
Same idea scales down to lower bitrates. You do need more bits to maintain the same quality, but not a ton.
"Support all browsers!"
The AC was asking to support NO browsers. Think of the cost savings!
they seem to have fixed the site. For the last few months, opening the home page or doing a search locked up my browser for a minute or more. Today both stay responsive throughout the loading process. It's finally usable again!
"A fair amount of decoding power is also required, so you will need good hardware."
Since adobe's flash player can't handle decoding and upscaling 1080p30 to 2.5K at more than slideshow rates, but mplayer can handle decoding 4K and downscaling it, using one core, at full rate - I submit that any problems I experience in decoding aren't the fault of my (middle-aged Phenom II) processor, they're the fault of Adobe's shit software.
Here's a proper test video for anyone who wants one - just a white box moving smoothly around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't know if it's just my setup (I've got an i7 and an Nvidia card, which ought to be enough) - but it drops in and out of smooth 60fps about 25% of the time.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I anticipate many people claiming that the new material just looks smoother and they could never go back to 30fps where they swear they can see the frames change. Even though, placed in blind tests, very few people are likely to be able to tell the difference.
It'll be just like the audiofool situation, with people spending their money on 96KHz sample rate recordings even though no human ear can benefit from such a thing.
Unless you kill DASH and other "improvements".
I'm kinda curious why everybody is assuming that it won't work in firefox. Because it works just fine for me. I don't see it in the resolution choices though. Maybe it's the Youtube HD extension that manages to select it.