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.
This is Google favoring their own browser. There's nothing Mozilla can do about it.
If you don't like this attitude, don't use Chrome.
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.
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.
If you edit the video (even doing nothing) with YT tools, it will reprocess it from the source that's still kept by Google, according to https://twitter.com/Christophe...
They don't support all browsers, so your standards have been met.
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!
No this is Google favoring new standards before some browsers are quite ready for it. Firefox supports 60fps if the video is encoded in WebM (VP9) which only happens on Youtube if it has enough views to warrant encoding it in additional formats. Mozilla is still working on Media Source Extensions and MPEG-DASH support which is needed to play back h.264@60fps but afaik it should be in FF36 although it's not ready yet in nightly 36 builds.
Google could have added support in the Flash player but why would they put in the effort for a fairly novel feature when they are trying to replace flash with HTML5? In a few months every browser will support the HTML5 features and nobody will remember this story.
Indeed.
So i opened in firefox, watch a little, then opened up in chrome. Initially i didnt' really notice. So i watch a few minutes (nice vid indeed).. then switched back to firefox. Amazing..
It's not only the resolution, it's also that the increased fps visually increases resolution too, and overall smoothness, even color perception (why that latter, i'm not sure).
I admit. I turned from an unbeliever ('my eyes can't see better than 25fps anyways') to a believer. 60fps footage really improves video quality.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
Just to add to this, 60fps works fine in Internet Explorer 11 and in Safari as well. In fact both have supported it for some time. Of the major browsers, at this point Firefox is the odd man out.
This video crap should be the least of Mozilla's concerns for Firefox. Firefox's UI has been terribly broken since Firefox 4, and it has been getting worse with each new release. The slow performance and excessive memory usage problems that have been there for a decade now still aren't properly fixed, even if the Firefox devs will babble on about their microbenchmarks that suggest otherwise. These are the real problems that are driving users away from Firefox. They need to be fixed first.
I think Mozilla may privately be in panic mode, or should be if they aren't already.
Firefox is quickly sliding into irrelevance. It's down to around 10% or 11% of the market, with no sign of a reversal happening.
All of Mozilla's recent initiatives have failed. Australis was a disaster. Firefox OS has gotten tons of bad reviews, it's crippled compared to pretty much every other modern mobile OS, and it's unwanted by the general public. Persona was rejected, when not outright ignored. Rust has missed the boat by staying in development mode for so long (C++14, Swift and Go beat it to market). Firefox on Android is unremarkable, and they have no iOS presence. Nothing else they're working on sounds particularly appealing.
Mozilla needs to get back to making good products that people actually want to use. These pointless ventures involving stuff that users vocally despise clearly aren't working. I don't see Mozilla surviving as an organization if it has no users.
Freaking only getting ISDN speeds after 8pm.
Don't compete with Comcast's primetime video on demand sales, dude.
If it's only to video sites like YouTube you can use a VPN provider - what's $6/mo on top of an absurd Comcast bill already?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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...
If I can't see it by telnetting to port 80 it isn't there!
Can someone explain why a video decoder cannot decode at any arbitrary frame rate? The algorithm doesn't change.
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 some reason video players on the web are often slow and/or crashy. The default Youtube one is passable (flash)
Whatever is on wikipedia sucks balls. (and is designed to rape my ears)
I've seen the "media player"'s skin change after a music was launched, like it was following some bizarre rules to choose html5 vs flash (switch from one to another after the show has started? or it was skin change for the sake of it. Thanks for the slow and interrupting refresh)
Worst is some html5 (I assume?) video boxes with an embedded flash object or two in it, the flash object is blocked and the flashblock icon is visible but unclickable, like the object is in a bottom layer. So the player can't work at all.
I'm concerned that web developers can do tricky crap to show off their talent and be "modern", while most of the time we just want to look at documents and embedded videos, not figuring out new graphical interfaces all the time.
Also, a big failure of HTML5 video was to only include a couple of highly demanding codecs. If you're including a proprietary codec, why not have the old ones from flash video (FLV)?, or H263 proper. If I want to look at full screen 240p or 288p at 15fps on a modest computer, I should be able to do that.
...before some browsers are quite ready for it? Who says the Internet is ready for it? Seriously, why on earth should we even be thinking about routinely streaming stuff at 60fps over the internet. If net neutrality has any downside at all, this is it. It's bad enough that Netflix is eating up 30% (or whatever) of the available bandwidth. I'm not saying that ISP's should be instituting fast lanes, etc. But this is just asking for it...
And seriously, it reminds me of the push to put 4K displays on 5 inch cellphones. Really, why? Someday, the infrastructure (or battery tech on phones) will support this kind of thing without a hiccup, but that day is not today. You might say we need things that push the envelope in order to bring that someday into being - but Netflix is doing a pretty good job of that as it is.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Firefox is the odd man out because they chose not to support a patent encumbered file format. Out of Microsoft, Apple, Google and Mozilla, they are the only ones to care about user freedom.
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.
Firefox is the odd man out because they chose not to support a patent encumbered file format. Out of Microsoft, Apple, Google and Mozilla, they are the only ones to care about user freedom.
Indeed, and the irony is that Firefox *is* supporting 60fps in Google's own videoformat, WebM/VP9, but Google themselves don't support this format on most of Youtube.