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. |
16th May 2014, 22:44 | #41 | Link |
Angel of Night
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tangled in the silks
Posts: 9,559
|
It's amazing that they apparently run x264 on ultrafast/realtime for everything and give it wretched quality, then likely spend hundreds of times as much cpu time on their VP9 encodes that aren't universally compatible. You'd almost think it was intentional, maximizing the differences to sell their format. (The way On2 used to.)
VP9 is a good format, there's no denying that, but if they'd done the same for their h.264 encodes they'd look quite a bit better. |
17th May 2014, 00:00 | #43 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
Anyway, here's something interesting I noticed. For resolutions 480p and smaller, VP9 actually is of a considerably smaller filesize than the h.264 DASH formats; it would seem that Google is indeed trying to use VP9 to reduce bandwidth. However it would seem that at the same time they're trying to make their HD formats still look good, which can make sense since if the user is watching those resolutions then they probably care at least a bit about the video quality. Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 17th May 2014 at 00:12. |
|
17th May 2014, 10:07 | #44 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,121
|
I think they pretty much encode small resolutions first cause it's faster, HD takes ages compared to SD, Youtube probably just want Quantity before Quality (Speed in this case).
Hmm, how would you say VP9 looks at those bitrates compared to h264? And how big difference are we talking, 1000 vs 200? Really hope you are correct about there aim on HD, i have my doubts as it's extremely dynamic in bitrate however, but as long as VP9 improves, hopefully the bitrate difference won't be large enough to make the efficient difference lose. |
22nd May 2014, 15:04 | #48 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
|
Quote:
(Is it me or did something got bork with the bookmarklet. It redirects me to https which fails to load...) |
|
22nd May 2014, 17:57 | #49 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.cys-audiovideodownloader.com/ https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/fir...and-audio-dow/ EDIT: I just realized that YouTube has an actual separate 1440p format, even for h.264. I could have sworn that 1440p and 2160p had the same base format meaning that if your video had 2160p then it didn't have 1440p (and obviously vice versa). Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 9th December 2014 at 08:48. |
||
22nd May 2014, 22:41 | #50 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 930
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd May 2014, 23:48 | #52 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,121
|
Quote:
Remember the "Original" talk before, i am pretty sure that was the same, being anything above 1080p and up to a certain size. Then i think they changed name to, 2160p or something, which was anything, 1200p etc, up to 4k or what it was, i think they later changed it to a lower resolution, at least i read something about that. I guess they added it back cause of 4k being the next "high-end stream", and i guess more resolutions add compatibility, i just hope they could get on with VP9 on at least 1440p, cause my resolution is 1200p which my videos are in most cases. |
|
22nd May 2014, 23:51 | #53 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 447
|
It's my understanding that it went like this:
Introduce 4096x3072 as "Original" -> rename format to "2160p" -> introduce a separate "1440p" resolution. And I just noticed that the Wikipedia article for YouTube states the following: Quote:
Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 22nd May 2014 at 23:55. |
|
22nd May 2014, 23:54 | #54 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,121
|
That is most probable, it goes hand in hand with what i said i think.
Just not sure, does Youtube support 4k or not? I mean, 2160 is not 4k, but the naming can be deceiving as they have been before on Youtube. Also, has any of your new videos become VP9? Or was it just a rare case back then? |
23rd May 2014, 01:41 | #55 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 4,407
|
Isn't 2160p = 4K? I understand 4K = 3840x2160, 8K = 7680x4320. No idea why we switched from vertical to horizontal pixel counts for naming, maybe 2K sounded too 14 years ago? 2160p doesn't sound bad to me but it must have focus tested worse than 4K.
|
23rd May 2014, 01:54 | #56 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,121
|
Oh right, forgot about the different definitions of 4k, 3840 is the correct one, quite frustrated about that, for me 4k is 4000, which means 4096 = 4k in the byte world.
I am guessing the naming sense is simply for the next-gen flash. For example, it sound much more high end in the market if you say, Skip your 1080p video today and get 4k! The things that comes to mind is, 1000 *4 = 4k, which is quite the more impact then 2160p which sound like it's just twice as good compared to four times. Then there is also "Full HD" which is the correct opposie to "4k", i am guessing 2160p is the true 1080p opposite. Quote:
Downsizing has much more impact then the codec difference cause of 2 things. 1: Downsizing is always bad, and is only used for squeezing less bitrates while making it appear better than it is. 2: Higher resolutions on youtube yield higher bitrates, which makes less resolutions with VP9 negligible in quality difference. Both these together makes it quite clear that the highest resolution will probably always be the winner (In the Youtube case). |
|
23rd May 2014, 02:46 | #57 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
In fact most of my videos have VP9 encodings, the only ones that don't usually only have 1000 or so views anyway. The issue is that my videos with VP9 encodings (other than the F-Zero GX video) were uploaded due to their audio - the actual video stream is just a single still image. However, I do upload those audio-focused videos with completely lossless audio (lossless the entire way - source, editing, and upload) so if you want to do an audio quality comparison then they'd work great. EDIT: However, if you are doing any audio testing you need to make sure you download the audio via CYS rather than KeepVid - it seems that KeepVid only links to the middle quality DASH audio format while CYS is able to download the low, medium, and high quality DASH audio formats. EDIT 2: Uh, wow. While doing an audio quality comparison between 1080p WebM and 1080p MP4 I think I may have discovered a semi-widespread vorbis decoding bug. During the very second note of a specific song there's an audible pop that shouldn't be there, but it's there in Foobar2000, Firefox, and Audacity. However, the pop is not there in Chrome, VLC, and MPC-HC. For reference this pop is not present in the AAC encodings as well and to be clear isn't in the original audio either. Also converting the vorbis file to WAV via Foobar makes the pop still be there but converting the same vorbis file via VLC (though at 16 bit) results in the pop being present. I think I'm going to need to go to the HydrogenAudio guys for this one... EDIT 3: Even wierder, when I put the save vorbis file into an matroska container and then everything is fine... Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64; 23rd May 2014 at 06:26. |
|
23rd May 2014, 23:18 | #58 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 447
|
So then, more on-topic, I just realized that CYS hasn't actually been updated in over 2 months (does that mean YouTube's been doing VP9 since March?!). I've been in contact with the author of that extension over the last several months over several things so I'm going to shoot him an email right now about adding the VP9 4k format.
EDIT: Email sent. The guy usually responds anywhere from within a single to to about a week, so it shouldn't take too long. Last edited by Guest; 23rd May 2014 at 23:44. Reason: remove ot discussion |
23rd May 2014, 23:38 | #59 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,121
|
Quote:
Though what do you mean VP9 4k format, have i missed something? As far as i know, VP9 is Only up to 1080p atm. Last edited by Guest; 23rd May 2014 at 23:43. Reason: remove ot material |
|
|
|