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 24th November 2008, 05:24   #1  |  Link
@MeGui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 39
YouTube videos go 1280x720

"Wired, with the help of users on the VR-Zone forums, has uncovered a simple way to get high-quality uploaded videos to display in 1280x720--also known as 720p.
YouTube has long been expected to roll out high-definition video playback, and this appears to be the first viable way to do it. The hack in question is similar to the one that was first used to toggle on the "high quality" mode. It is done simply by adding "&fmt=22" to the end of the video URL...."


http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10104182-2.html
@MeGui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 05:26   #2  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Its not anything new: in fact, its an extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

The encoding is done with a very old revision of x264 and near-default settings (but no CABAC).
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 05:33   #3  |  Link
@MeGui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 39
I can't understand, why with an old x264?...

p.s. they need Doom9 forum
@MeGui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 05:36   #4  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by @MeGui View Post
I can't understand, why with an old x264?...
.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari
extremely old experiment
Quote:
Originally Posted by @MeGui View Post
p.s. they need Doom9 forum
I spent half a weekend talking with the guy who maintains their encoder last month I don't think they're exactly uninformed.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 05:41   #5  |  Link
@MeGui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 39
U said old...it is ok, but looks like all members on Doom9 knows more than guys and gals from Tube regarding x264, seems ...
@MeGui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2008, 12:20   #6  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,079
YouTube 720p Where the Hell is Matt? (2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=22

MediaInfo
Code:
General
Complete name                    : C:\video.mp4
Format                           : MPEG-4
Format profile                   : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID                         : mp42
File size                        : 73.6 MiB
Duration                         : 4mn 28s
Overall bit rate                 : 2 296 Kbps
Encoded date                     : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date                      : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09

Video
Format                           : AVC
Format/Info                      : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                   : Main@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC           : No
Format settings, ReFrames        : 4 frames
Codec ID                         : avc1
Codec ID/Info                    : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                         : 4mn 28s
Bit rate mode                    : Variable
Bit rate                         : 2 060 Kbps
Nominal bit rate                 : 2 000 Kbps
Maximum bit rate                 : 11.8 Mbps
Width                            : 1 280 pixels
Height                           : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio             : 16/9
Frame rate mode                  : Constant
Frame rate                       : 30.000 fps
Resolution                       : 24 bits
Colorimetry                      : 4:2:0
Scan type                        : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)               : 0.075
Stream size                      : 66.0 MiB (90%)
Title                            : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v06.24.2007.
Writing library                  : x264 core 54
Encoding settings                : cabac=0 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=hex / subme=5 / brdo=0 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=1 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=2 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / wpredb=1 / bime=0 / keyint=60 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / rc=abr / bitrate=2000 / ratetol=1.0 / rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=38 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30
Encoded date                     : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date                      : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09

Audio
Format                           : AAC
Format/Info                      : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version                   : Version 4
Format profile                   : LC
Format settings, SBR             : No
Codec ID                         : 40
Duration                         : 4mn 28s
Bit rate mode                    : Variable
Bit rate                         : 232 Kbps
Maximum bit rate                 : 256 Kbps
Channel(s)                       : 2 channels
Channel positions                : L R
Sampling rate                    : 44.1 KHz
Resolution                       : 16 bits
Stream size                      : 7.43 MiB (10%)
Title                            : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v06.24.2007.
Encoded date                     : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Tagged date                      : UTC 2008-06-19 11:35:09
Why they use Main Profile instead of High?!!? I'm not sure if 30fps is correct. All NTSC HD camcorders record in 29.97 not in 30 ?!?!?
Atak_Snajpera is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 15:15   #7  |  Link
Flux
Registered User
 
Flux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 109
It is really a shame that the most popular video player site has so terrible video and audio quality. Resolution is low (mostly 480x360), bitrate is terrible (1280x720 with 2 Mbit/s? WTF?), ehhh the most common audio quality is 96 kbps MP3 with MONO?

If I could decide, I would hire some people from Doom9 site. High quality needs passion. You can't really get the optimal results if you are thinking that encoding is just a job where you get some money and then go home. You must have personal care about these things to get them right.

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?
Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 15:27   #8  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,079
Quote:
Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions?
New builds are usually faster than older
Atak_Snajpera is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 17:04   #9  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,039
With newer builds you usually get:
Higher encoding speed (for same quality) + better quality (at the same bitrate) + less old bugs (+ new bugs ???)

However I assume each new revision/build would need to go through their QA department first, before they update all the servers.
That delays updates and makes them expensive...
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 20:26   #10  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?
How is it that I can explain exactly why they're using an old version, from the mouth of the man who runs the encoding chain himself, and people still continue to speculate in the thread as if I never posted the information?
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 20:35   #11  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,079
Something is going on YouTube site. Default resolution changed to 640x360 (?!!?)
Atak_Snajpera is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 21:23   #12  |  Link
Flux
Registered User
 
Flux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
How is it that I can explain exactly why they're using an old version, from the mouth of the man who runs the encoding chain himself, and people still continue to speculate in the thread as if I never posted the information?
Quote:
Its not anything new: in fact, its an extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

The encoding is done with a very old revision of x264 and near-default settings (but no CABAC).
Was not intended? Okay. The point is that the very old build is still there after an year. Why? Because they are dumb, because they don't care or because...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Something is going on YouTube site. Default resolution changed to 640x360 (?!!?)
They increased horizontal resolution for widescreen so that the "old" 4:3 ratio doesn't lose any resolution but just gets rendered black bars.

Last edited by Flux; 25th November 2008 at 21:25.
Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2008, 22:33   #13  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
It is really a shame that the most popular video player site has so terrible video and audio quality. Resolution is low (mostly 480x360), bitrate is terrible (1280x720 with 2 Mbit/s? WTF?), ehhh the most common audio quality is 96 kbps MP3 with MONO?

If I could decide, I would hire some people from Doom9 site. High quality needs passion. You can't really get the optimal results if you are thinking that encoding is just a job where you get some money and then go home. You must have personal care about these things to get them right.

Maybe they are using an old version of x264 because it might not be so demanding for the servers as the new versions? Or maybe it breaks some compatibility? Maybe they have built something important around the old version of x264 and they can't really change it without extra expenses? Who knows.

BTW, what is the build date for that "extremely old x264 version" they are using?
not many encoder these days are capable of this avg bitrate @ 720p X264 is one of them that is, though without cabac and only subme 5 it's a little weak for a lot of sources indeed imho not even counting High profile (overrated by many it only has 1 very high visual purpose more detail preservation).
__________________
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 25th November 2008, 22:59   #14  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
Was not intended? Okay. The point is that the very old build is still there after an year. Why? Because they are dumb, because they don't care or because...?
Let me bold the important words for you then.

extremely old experiment on Youtube's part that wasn't intended to be used for more than a few test videos.

If they knew people were hijacking it for their own purposes, they'd disable it, not upgrade it.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 00:23   #15  |  Link
Flux
Registered User
 
Flux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 109
So &fmt=22 "hack" is not meant for public anyway...not yet at least? The bad side is that more and more people are using it and think it is as the "official" Youtube HD solution. There is currently several Anime and other 720p stuff on Youtube and users are like "wow, that is cool, HD at last!", etc. Well, misunderstandings happen I guess =/ Hopefully they will upgrade it before official HD support is released...

Do they use same old experiment x264 for current "High Quality" mode too which is 480x360?
Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 01:10   #16  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
So &fmt=22 "hack" is not meant for public anyway...not yet at least?
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
The bad side is that more and more people are using it and think it is as the "official" Youtube HD solution. There is currently several Anime and other 720p stuff on Youtube and users are like "wow, that is cool, HD at last!", etc. Well, misunderstandings happen I guess =/ Hopefully they will upgrade it before official HD support is released...
Official HD solution? I know of no plans to do that on Youtube; given what I heard from Pascal I highly doubt that will happen soon, simply because it doesn't fit their model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flux View Post
Do they use same old experiment x264 for current "High Quality" mode too which is 480x360?
No, they use an in-house Baseline-only encoder for that.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 02:01   #17  |  Link
Codex0nz
Doom9 Lover
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 117
what benefit would having high def on youtube give, really ll copyrighted material will be removed, and the stuff that people want to see is there for quick easy access, how many people realistically have the bandwidth to support watching a lot of hd content from youtube? Unless they are looking at providing streamed movies perhaps...
__________________
Creativity is the birth of a new era, will you be creative also?
Codex0nz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 02:09   #18  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,039
HD Camcorders become widely used, so people may want to publish their recordings in full resolution !?

Also: What about screen captures? Or HD trailers/samples? And so on...
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 09:35   #19  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
From a reliable source, I can confirm all my above information is now outdated, and Youtube has decided to change their strategy a bit

(PROTIP: Expect them to update their x264 soon )
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 12:32   #20  |  Link
cyberbeing
Broadband Junkie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,859
Good to hear. So did the old experiment become a new experiment or will HD now become a permanent fixture on Youtube?
cyberbeing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 19:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.