Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by OtakuGamerZ, Jul 10, 2010.
Yeah that seems reasonable.
They don't even have sub 200 1080p cameras who can afford 4000p cameras.
idk This sounds completely unnecessary,but...
people wants moar!!!!!
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.
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!!!
fuck year, shitty quality now brought to you in higher definition.
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.
F*ck resolution, I want more lengh for my vids.
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.
Exactly. 10 minutes is too fucking short.
better then 1 min What would u do with more then 10 mins other then upload cartoon shows or something?
I cant wait to post my first 4096p video!....I wonder how long it'll take to upload. a couple hours? days? weeks!?!
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?!
Wow. Watta lag. I cant watch the vid properly
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.
1080p is still pointless on YouTube, so why the need for this?
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.
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.