# 4K videos comes to YouTube



## OtakuGamerZ (Jul 10, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Today at the VidCon 2010 conference, we announced support for videos shot in 4K (a reference resolution of 4096 x 3072), meaning that now we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4096p. To give some perspective on the size of 4K, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet; IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors.
> 
> We always want videos on YouTube to be available in the highest quality possible, as creators intend. In December of last year, we announced support for 1080p, or full HD. At 4096 x 3072 pixels, 4K is nearly four times the size of 1080p. To view any video in a source resolution greater than 1080p, select "Original" in the video quality pulldown menu:
> 
> ...


Source
Watch Here



4096p! Why?


----------



## Urza (Jul 10, 2010)

Yeah that seems reasonable.


----------



## Santee (Jul 10, 2010)

They don't even have sub 200 1080p cameras who can afford 4000p cameras.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 10, 2010)

OtakuGamerZ said:
			
		

> 4096p! Why?



idk This sounds completely unnecessary,but...

people wants moar!!!!!


----------



## juggernaut911 (Jul 10, 2010)

This is stupid.

Wait when this becomes more used like the 1080P feature. People will upscale their vids and Flash won't be able to handle it and crappy Youtube compression will kick in.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 10, 2010)

no moniter can even go that high and even if one does you'd need a 1000 mb/s connection to stream the god damn thing!!!


----------



## Cermage (Jul 10, 2010)

fuck year, shitty quality now brought to you in higher definition.


----------



## BakuFunn (Jul 10, 2010)

A consumer site like YouTube outputting this shit?

A lot of people can't even watch 1080p videos, be the limit display or bandwidth.
All this does is make things more complicated for the less computer savvy.


Idiots.


----------



## Ikki (Jul 10, 2010)

F*ck resolution, I want more lengh for my vids.


----------



## nutella (Jul 10, 2010)

even if the majority of computers could handle this and display 4k resolution, there's no way anyone could tell the difference unless you're using like a 50 inch monitor or something.


----------



## juggernaut911 (Jul 10, 2010)

nutella5600 said:
			
		

> even if the majority of computers could handle this and display 4k resolution, there's no way anyone could tell the difference unless you're using like a 50 inch monitor or something.


You'd also need a resolution boost.


----------



## Raika (Jul 10, 2010)

Ramonra said:
			
		

> F*ck resolution, I want more lengh for my vids.


Exactly. 10 minutes is too fucking short.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 10, 2010)

Raika said:
			
		

> Ramonra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


better then 1 min 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


 What would u do with more then 10 mins other then upload cartoon shows or something?


----------



## dinofan01 (Jul 10, 2010)

I cant wait to post my first 4096p video!....I wonder how long it'll take to upload. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 a couple hours? days? weeks!?!


----------



## RupeeClock (Jul 10, 2010)

Maybe that can stop wasting their time and bandwidth by adding support for useless shit like this, and start by removing that 10 minute restriction?!


----------



## Infinite Zero (Jul 10, 2010)

Wow. Watta lag. I cant watch the vid properly


----------



## Sevael (Jul 10, 2010)

Technically it's 3072p (assuming progressive scan).  XXXXp is measured by the vertical resolution, not the horizontal.  1080p is 1920x1080 pixels.

4096x3072 is also a 4:3 resolution.  Seems like a pretty odd choice in this day and age.

25-foot screen is also a major exaggeration.  I can _just_ make out the pixels on my 46" 1080p HDTV from the couch in my living room (no, I don't have glasses or contacts).  At the same pixel density as a 46" 1080p HDTV, a 4096x3072 screen would be 7.1 feet (85 inches) wide by 5.3 feet (64 inches) tall.  Something used for closer viewing (like a computer monitor) would have a higher pixel density and thus be even smaller, around 43.7"w x 32.8"h (based on the dimensions of my 24" PC monitor).  That's equivalent to a 50" HDTV, but taller.


----------



## Thoob (Jul 10, 2010)

1080p is still pointless on YouTube, so why the need for this?


----------



## Rydian (Jul 10, 2010)

Sevael said:
			
		

> Technically it's 3072p (assuming progressive scan).  XXXXp is measured by the vertical resolution, not the horizontal.  1080p is 1920x1080 pixels.Yeah, it's odd they'd get something so simple about it incorrect...
> QUOTE(Sevael @ Jul 10 2010, 12:49 AM) 4096x3072 is also a 4:3 resolution.  Seems like a pretty odd choice in this day and age.


As well, HD videos are shot widescreen (government reference sheet on HDTV here), not 4:3.

Getting two of the most basic facts about display resolutions incorrect?  I call fake/joke/farce/shenanigans.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 10, 2010)

OtakuGamerZ said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Must be a joke.

-No video container online can support 4k res. without lagging considerably
-Only massive octo-core computers with top-range graphics card will support it
-Too expensive to stream and implement
-On a 5MB connection, a 4K pic takes 4 minutes to load, so a video would take about 1,000,000 years to load.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Jul 10, 2010)

4K vids? Let Internet speeds improve then we'll talk.


----------



## Veho (Jul 10, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> -On a 5MB connection, a 4K pic takes 4 minutes to load, so a video would take about 1,000,000 years to load.


I don't know where you get that estimate but I have a 5mb connection, been downloading 4Kx3K images (and larger, of a _certain_ nature, off a _certain image board_






) and it takes way under a minute. It all depends on the speed cap on the server side.


----------



## AzuraSky (Jul 10, 2010)

I find this abit of an overkill i mean sure everyone wants good quality but 4k seriously?

People without fast net are basically screwed then if they wanna watch it. And if there a huge flux of people watching the same video the server would be slowed making even people with fast net wait some periods for the videos.

In saying that i doubt that many 4k resolution videos are coming out anytime soon. lol.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jul 10, 2010)

these are probably for a few 1000 ppl who have the connection and the need/desire for it... still something that shows tht 4 picabyte storage of rapidshare isnt enuf for them anymore


----------



## The Pi (Jul 10, 2010)

Ramonra said:
			
		

> F*ck resolution, I want more lengh for my vids.


Yeah.

1080p is enough until both internet speeds are better and giant ultrahd tv's are cheap enough.


----------



## Sevael (Jul 10, 2010)

Thoob said:
			
		

> 1080p is still pointless on YouTube, so why the need for this?


That's exactly right.  YouTube downscales HD (and now "4k") resolutions to 852x480 for the site.  Then the video is either upscaled or downscaled from there, depending on what resolution you watch it at.  A video watched on YouTube is no higher than a native 852x480, at best.  That is 480p @ 16:9.  Not HD.

Once you upload a video to YouTube, it is no longer HD after they downconvert it and make it available for viewing.  The resolutions they "support" are only in regards to what we can upload.

They still seem to think that we don't know this, based on the way they advertised 720p, 1080p and now this 4k.  They must think we're complete morons.


----------



## PrinceNOOB (Jul 10, 2010)

Cool this is great news


----------



## Raiser (Jul 10, 2010)

Cermage said:
			
		

> fuck year, shitty quality now brought to you in higher definition.








Made my day.
Seriously though, who the hell's gonna bother watching videos in 4096 when few people watch them in 1080?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2010)

Well at least they are finally getting around to doing something I would call high definition.

As for why- video is a great medium but it really does not do lots of text well courtesy of the lower resolution than the likes of pictures and well text (there are technical considerations as well such as the assumptions used to make lossy compression worthwhile to do and try to play back).

Similarly it is nice on occasion to zoom into a photo (if not only for gigapixel images)- your digital camera is probably at or above this resolution and good ones laugh at it.


----------



## monkat (Jul 11, 2010)

Honestly, I couldn't care less.

As long as the video itself isn't all blocky like youtube displayed a few years back (now it's just poor video quality on the producer's end), I'm fine with it.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 11, 2010)

This is just there for the novelty factor.
Nothing special.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Jul 11, 2010)

I have a 1080p LCD display, but I still watch my videos on 360p. I don't really care, honestly.

EDIT: In reference to youtube videos


----------



## Ikki (Jul 11, 2010)

KingVamp said:
			
		

> What would u do with more then 10 mins other then upload cartoon shows or something?


Reviews, longplays... YouTube goes beyond nigahiga for your information, sir.


----------



## Ferrariman (Jul 11, 2010)

can anyone actually run this madness in-browser


----------



## DaMummy (Jul 11, 2010)

this must be meant for people in fast internet countries like sweden and japan


----------



## Ferrariman (Jul 11, 2010)

DaMummy said:
			
		

> this must be meant for people in fast internet countries like sweden and japan


Not download it, I mean actually run it (inbrowser)

Sometimes I think it's smooth but then it gets all choppy again. My PC isn't exactly very good but jus sayin


----------



## ore0 (Jul 11, 2010)

Well Obama did say he wanted to increase the internet


----------



## geoflcl (Jul 11, 2010)

Perhaps Youtube ought to focus on making their player a little less wonky before shoving septuple-HD video down our throats. 

Priorities, Youtube. Priorities!

(Though TEXTp was awesome)


----------



## Rydian (Jul 11, 2010)

geoflcl said:
			
		

> (Though TEXTp was awesome)


I wish they had kept it.


----------



## TM2-Megatron (Jul 11, 2010)

Completely pointless.


----------



## Jasper07 (Jul 11, 2010)

I think my computer will crash when I play 4096p videos


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 11, 2010)

any computer will


----------



## Infinite Zero (Jul 11, 2010)

Mine didnt crash. It lagged so much


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 11, 2010)

even my comp couldn't do it and look what i have!


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 11, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> geoflcl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me too.


----------



## TM2-Megatron (Jul 11, 2010)

My computer played it, but it was slightly jumpy.  If this were 4k at an equivalent-quality bitrate to Blu-Ray, most computers wouldn't have a chance of even getting past the first frame.  YouTube uses fairly low bitrates, though, even if the resolution is high.


----------



## tk_saturn (Jul 11, 2010)

For most of us 4K is 16:9 3840 x 2160 or 17:9 4096 x 2160. Ie, the holy grail of HD. Not 4096 x 3072 which is 4:3, I have no interest in a 4K 4:3 TV to play youtube videos.


----------



## tijntje_7 (Jul 11, 2010)

I'm scared...
My computer laggs already @ 1080p.
I tried 4096. I guess I should be happy it didn't crash o.o
1GB ram, 3.0GHz dual core. And a graphical card from the middle ages.
xD
iNeed new graphic card lol

By the way, the framerate was around... 0,4 fps? xD
Probably even worse lolwut


----------



## coolbho3000 (Jul 12, 2010)

Bladexdsl said:
			
		

> no moniter can even go that high and even if one does you'd need a 1000 mb/s connection to stream the god damn thing!!!


Well, monitors go way beyond 1080p nowadays, so this will be able to push those monitors.

If the video is choppy and you're on Windows, install Flash 10.1, which uses GPU acceleration to decode the video.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 12, 2010)

coolbho3000 said:
			
		

> Bladexdsl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i've never seen any


----------



## Rydian (Jul 12, 2010)

Newegg has four 2560x1600 right now, but that's the max they carry.


----------



## HaniKazmi (Jul 12, 2010)

This might be useful for multiscreen setups if you buffer it in advance 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 12, 2010)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Newegg has four 2560x1600 right now, but that's the max they carry.


that's nowhere near 4k too


----------



## Urza (Jul 12, 2010)

Nowhere in the post does it mention "4096p." Explanation of the "4K reference resolution":


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> As far as digital cinematography is concerned, video resolution standards depend first on the frames' aspect ratio in the film stock (which is usually scanned for digital intermediate post-production) and then on the actual points' count. Although there is not a unique set of standardized sizes, it is commonplace within the motion picture industry to refer to "nK" image "quality", where n  is a (small, usually even) integer number which translates into a set of actual resolutions, depending on the film format. As a reference consider that, for a 4:3 (around 1.33:1) aspect ratio which a film frame (no matter what is its format) is expected to horizontally fit in, n  is the multiplier of 1024 such that the horizontal resolution is exactly 1024n points. For example, 2K reference resolution is 2048×1536 pixels, whereas 4K reference resolution is 4096×3072 pixels. Nevertheless, 2K may also refer to resolutions like 2048×1556 (full-aperture), 2048×1152 (HDTV, 16:9 aspect ratio) or 2048×872 pixels (Cinemascope, 2.35:1 aspect ratio). It is also worth noting that while a frame resolution may be, for example, 3:2 (720×480 NTSC), that is not what you will see on-screen (i.e. 4:3 or 16:9 depending on the orientation of the rectangular pixels).


----------



## tijntje_7 (Jul 12, 2010)

How the f*ck do youtube's (google's?) servers keep up with those HUGE videos? o.O
I mean come on
"To illustrate the power of 4K, please check out the videos in this playlist; each one was created by a filmmaker with access to a 4K camera. *(Be warned: watching videos in 4K, even on YouTube, will require ultra-fast high-speed broadband connections)*."
Seriously they got the most epic servers one can imagine xD
But why didn't they err... support something in between 4k and 1k p first?
Like 2k or whatever...
There are almost none to none computers which can handle it :/
Pretty useless imo :/
(unless IMAX is going to stream and get their videos from youtube? o.O xD)


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 12, 2010)

As mentioned elsewhere 1080p= 1920x1080 and I will pick a few that are truly higher res rather than just a few 16:10 monitors (1920x1200)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....120&subcat= comes in at 2560 x 1600

http://www.amazon.com/Hewlett-Packard-Wide.../dp/B000KB6E36/

Another at 2560 x 1600

A couple from your neck of the woods:

http://www.cworld.com.au/product_info.php?ID=141112
http://www.megabuy.com.au/hp-lp3065-30-lcd...yrs-p14615.html

Those are two consumer grade devices with above 1080P, start heading into the medical, CAD/engineering, finance, AV and graphics world and you can go higher although most people in those worlds focus on more important things than resolution (usually colours).
Drop a word like eyefinity and you get things like 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6732...gies_CDM43.html
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct....779&subcat=


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 12, 2010)

fuck them i wouldn't pay 2-3k for a computer monitor!!


----------

