Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13th November 2009, 15:13   #1  |  Link
demistate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 26
Youtube is now accepting 1080P files

Youtube just announced on their blog that they will be encoding 1080P files for the viewer to watch on Youtube.

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2...o-youtube.html

Here is a link to a (poor) sample video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37

Here is a sample from a 21MP 6k time lapse, downsampled to 1080P sunset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iiwWqoqgI4&fmt=37

Quality isn't so great.

Originals:

http://alexandermejia.net/1080test/1080sunset_m2.mp4 (mp4 uploaded to youtube)
http://alexandermejia.net/1080test/screenshot.png (Screenshot of original)
http://alexandermejia.net/1080test/1080sunset_m2.avi (Black-magic Uncompressed 4:2:2 AVI)

Last edited by demistate; 13th November 2009 at 18:37.
demistate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 15:56   #2  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
3.5Mbps for 1080p30 = look very bad.
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 16:08   #3  |  Link
dvy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: china
Posts: 25
It is trash,Realtime stream 1080P is infeasible,on the other hand,Flash is rubbish, expect native HTML5 high performance <video> tag, e.g. chrome brower .

Last edited by dvy; 13th November 2009 at 16:15.
dvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 18:19   #4  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvy View Post
It is trash,Realtime stream 1080P is infeasible
Good thing they're not actually doing real-time streaming, but rather progressive download.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvy View Post
HTML5
So, since this is progressive download--just like Flash, except unsupported by 90% of browsers?

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 13th November 2009 at 18:25.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 18:21   #5  |  Link
Tagert
Registered User
 
Tagert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Karlskrona, Sweden
Posts: 72
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe8DuCy5PU&fmt=37
A better sample for 1080p,
Tagert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 18:39   #6  |  Link
demistate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagert View Post
What kind of camera did you take it with? Not all cameras resolve 4:4:4 data on 1920x1080.
demistate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 19:29   #7  |  Link
dvy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: china
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Good thing they're not actually doing real-time streaming, but rather progressive download.So, since this is progressive download--just like Flash, except unsupported by 90% of browsers?

FLASH is NON-IE browser plug-in or IE ActiveX control ,which have performance penality,and FLASH itself is low performance ,native HTML5 <video> tag is good stuff instead of FLASH for browser high performance movie playback.
dvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 19:31   #8  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,695
Quote:
What kind of camera did you take it with? Not all cameras resolve 4:4:4 data on 1920x1080.
And this matters... why? It's all 4:2:0 in the end, and it's not like he's doing any special effects like chroma keying that would actually require more than 4:2:0...

Quote:
FLASH is NON-IE browser plugging or IE ActiveX control ,which have performance penality,and FLASH itself is low performance ,native HTML5 <video> tag is good stuff instead of FLASH for browser high performance movie playback.
Yes... Flash is (currently) slow for 1080p content. AFAIK this is mostly due to its slow rendering / presentation. I don't think the <video> tag coming in HTML5 will inherently be any better. It will be up to browsers how to handle video playback, and I can't imagine that being terribly optimized - at least right out of the chute. Silverlight is pretty sweet at the moment, and Flash will speed up quite a bit soon.

Re: the youtube quality - meh. It's okay, but I doubt they're using bleeding edge x264 goodness. I could be wrong. I'm too lazy to bother trying, but has anyone downloaded one of these and grep'd through the file to see if they left the user data in the file, so we can at least peep on the encoding settings?

~MiSfit

Last edited by Blue_MiSfit; 13th November 2009 at 19:33.
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2009, 20:29   #9  |  Link
demistate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
And this matters... why? It's all 4:2:0 in the end, and it's not like he's doing any special effects like chroma keying that would actually require more than 4:2:0...

What I mean is that some cameras use pixel shifting or ailasing to create the false impression of resolution. If I were to shoot 1080P video on the same 5d Mark II , the resolution is much less than if I were to shoot an image sequence at the native sensor size, and downsample it to 1920x1080.

See these links for more reference. Not all 1920x1080P cameras resolve the same resolution.

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187008
demistate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 02:13   #10  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,695
Good point! I misinterpreted you!
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 09:34   #11  |  Link
CpT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Good thing they're not actually doing real-time streaming, but rather progressive download.
Can you imagine that via rtmp lol.
CpT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 10:23   #12  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,695
Actually streaming 1080p isn't that hard, provided your CDN and your customers have enough bandwidth. It's quite feasible these days. Not cheap, though

~MiSfit
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 10:35   #13  |  Link
CpT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
The CDN is the easy part, its the client's 'internets' that would puke.

Last edited by CpT; 17th November 2009 at 10:38.
CpT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 13:48   #14  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Here's more of a challenge: stream 1080p with an end-to-end latency of under 50ms.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 14:08   #15  |  Link
CpT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Here's more of a challenge: stream 1080p with an end-to-end latency of under 50ms.
Would probably have to use a company that leverages several cdn's via some sort of framework. Something like this http://www.mediamelon.com/index.html I've never used emm but I've heard good things.
You'd have to be fairly close for a consistent 50ms or less.
CpT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 14:09   #16  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpT View Post
Would probably have to use a company that leverages several cdn's via some sort of framework. Something like this http://www.mediamelon.com/index.html I've never used emm but I've heard good things.
You'd have to be fairly close for a consistent 50ms or less.
I'm including the capture time, encoding time, and VBV buffer in the 50ms

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 17th November 2009 at 14:11.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 14:16   #17  |  Link
CpT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 135
A live stream at those rates
CpT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 17:57   #18  |  Link
Seraphic-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 698
Microsoft's Zune Video started 1080p/5.1 streaming on Xbox 360 today.
Not sure how the mbps work out but people say it looks good.
Seraphic- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 21:54   #19  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
And to playback it http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 05:39   #20  |  Link
Schrade
Registered User
 
Schrade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 339
On my Windows XP SP3 32-Bit/nVIDIA GeForce 8800GT/Firefox 3.5.5 setup using the new Flash 10.1 beta there's no bilinear filtering on YouTube videos. Looks really horrible. Reminds me of when Google Video just released.
Schrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1080p, h.264, youtube

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.