YouTube videos go 1280x720

[@MeGui]

"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

[Dark Shikari]

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).

[@MeGui]

I can't understand, why with an old x264?...

p.s. they need Doom9 forum :)

[Dark Shikari]

I can't understand, why with an old x264?........extremely old experiment

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.

[@MeGui]

U said old...it is ok, but looks like all members on Doom9 knows more than guys and gals from Tube regarding x264, seems ...:)

[Atak_Snajpera]

YouTube 720p Where the Hell is Matt? (2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY&fmt=22

MediaInfo
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 ?!?!?

[Flux]

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?

[Atak_Snajpera]

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

[LoRd_MuldeR]

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...

[Dark Shikari]

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?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Something is going on YouTube site. Default resolution changed to 640x360 (?!!?)

[Flux]

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?

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...? :confused:

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.

[CruNcher]

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).

[Dark Shikari]

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...? :confused: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.

[Flux]

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?

[Dark Shikari]

So &fmt=22 "hack" is not meant for public anyway...not yet at least?Correct.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.
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.

[Codex0nz]

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...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

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...

[Dark Shikari]

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 :p)

[cyberbeing]

Good to hear. So did the old experiment become a new experiment or will HD now become a permanent fixture on Youtube?

[Atak_Snajpera]

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 )
I hope that you taught them how to use all weapons in x264 arsenal :) No cabac , only 1 ref , no 8x8DCT is a major sin.

[AnnaFan777]

Can someone get the youtube trick to work?

[slavickas]

I hope that you taught them how to use all weapons in x264 arsenal :) No cabac , only 1 ref , no 8x8DCT is a major sin.

my guess that crap Apple TV is responsbile for this...

[2Bdecided]

Can someone get the youtube trick to work?Yes, it still works even for new videos this week...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rlLJsbvvoKU&fmt=22

Just upload 1280x720 and add &fmt=22 to the URL

Cheers,
David.

[easy2Bcheesy]

Is it possible to embed the HD versions at 640x360? This is the best hosted streaming video I've yet seen.

My own attempt at uploading a 4mbps 720p30fps wasn't that great. Refuses to run in HD at all!

EDIT: It does work but you need to give it plenty of time after its first encodes to do the HD ones.

[slavickas]

Is it possible to embed the HD versions at 640x360? This is the best hosted streaming video I've yet seen.



http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/

[easy2Bcheesy]

They seem to have closed that loophole as even the sample code in the feature doesn't appear to work any more - you get the low resolution version up instead :(

[Nightshiver]

It's why you should use vreel.net instead of youtube.

[cyberbeing]

They seem to have closed that loophole as even the sample code in the feature doesn't appear to work any more - you get the low resolution version up instead :(

I just checked http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/ and the video they have embeded on the bottom is the 720p version. Are you talking about something else?:confused:

[2Bdecided]

I just checked http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/20/how-to-embed-and-play-720p-hd-high-definition-youtube-videos-fmt22-code-hack/ and the video they have embeded on the bottom is the 720p version.Works here too.

I think you'd be brave to force that version (and only that version) onto typical website visitors though - it would be glitchy and/or re-buffering constantly for many many people.

Cheers,
David.

[Flux]

This is a bit off-topic because I didn't want to create a new thread for one simple question and it is related to Youtube anyway.

Does Youtube honor any aspect ratio flags? For example, if one has anamorphic video, there is a way to force Youtube player to use resize on it?

[um3k]

YouTube HD is now official. HD videos now have a link below them that says "watch in HD". Turns out a video I uploaded way back in September is available in HD. Guess they've been preparing for a while!

[Charbax2]

I posted a basic comparison of the Online video sites that provide free HD Flash streaming: http://techvideoblog.com/reviews/online-video-sites-hd-quality-comparison/

Youtube HD: 1280×720 - 2mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz stereo 254kbit/s AAC audio

Facebook HD: 1280×720 - 2.5mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz 146kbit/s AAC stereo audio

SmugMug HD: 640×360 - 1.4mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz AAC stereo audio

Sevenload HD: 1280×720 - 1.8mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz 96kbit/s AAC stereo audio

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audio

Would you like to do some more advanced comparative testing, especially compare Youtube HD and Facebook HD?

My initial test shows Facebook has chosen to encode with 500kbit/s more bitrate. Any other differences in the way the H264 files are encoded?

[Dark Shikari]

I posted a basic comparison of the Online video sites that provide free HD Flash streaming: http://techvideoblog.com/reviews/online-video-sites-hd-quality-comparison/

Youtube HD: 1280×720 - 2mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz stereo 254kbit/s AAC audio

Facebook HD: 1280×720 - 2.5mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 44hz 146kbit/s AAC stereo audio

SmugMug HD: 640×360 - 1.4mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz AAC stereo audio

Sevenload HD: 1280×720 - 1.8mbit/s H264 - full framerate - 48hz 96kbit/s AAC stereo audio

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audio

Would you like to do some more advanced comparative testing, especially compare Youtube HD and Facebook HD?

My initial test shows Facebook has chosen to encode with 500kbit/s more bitrate. Any other differences in the way the H264 files are encoded?Facebook uses full High Profile and medium-high-ish quality x264 settings. Youtube uses a very old x264 version (unless they've fixed it since a few days ago) and Baseline profile.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Youtube uses a very old x264 version (unless they've fixed it since a few days ago) and Baseline profile.
Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !

[NerdWithNoLife]

Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !
But it wouldn't hurt to pay the wise people in this forum for some advice. You'd do it for half that, right guys?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Why they always must stay behind in terms of quality? is that hard for Google/YouTube to update x264 and use recommended settings by developers. It does not require 1 milion bucks !

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service. Also I think they wouldn't throw a new version on their severs until it has been tested excessively.
So why change a running system? The average Youtube user wouldn't notice the difference anyway, that's for sure!

And most important: Youtube's business was never to deliver high quality video, but to reach as many users as possible. That's a reason to go "Baseline" profile...

[Atak_Snajpera]

So why change a running system? The average Youtube user wouldn't notice the difference anyway, that's for sure!
So why x264 instead of deafault VP6 or any other crap codec like h.263??? Latest revisions are more stable than those year ago.

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service.
They should use recent builds from the beginning when they decided to introduce 720p!

FaceBook quality is very good. r1019 AQ + PsyRdo rules
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=561481753914

[LoRd_MuldeR]

So why x264 instead of deafault VP6 or any other crap codec like h.263??? Latest revisions are more stable than those year ago.

Even a pretty old revision of x264 should compress more efficient than VP6 or h.263, so it helps to safe bandwidth. And bandwidth costs money ;)

They should use recent builds from the beginning when they decided to introduce 720p!

Maybe they took the latest revision of x264 when they first started their experiments with 720p/H.264 and didn't update since then.

After all we can only speculate. Quite possible that they had a project running to evaluate options for adding h.264 support and the project is done now, so nobody is actively working on it...

[Dark Shikari]

Most likely updating all their severs is a huge amount of work for such a big service.No it isn't, it's a trivial amount of work.

It's just that Pascal is incredibly lazy... :p

[Sagekilla]

It should just be a simple "copy x264.exe to all servers," shouldn't it?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

But imagine somebody copies a defunct or incompatible x264.exe to all the Youtube servers, which causes all these servers to fail and go down :scared:

I guess the admin who did that mistake would need to look for a new job. So I'd test everything ten times, before I actually apply the update ;)

[Sagekilla]

If I were him I'd copy it over as something like x264new.exe and test it first ;)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

If I were him I'd copy it over as something like x264new.exe and test it first ;)

This would be pretty useless, if their sever software calls "x264.exe" instead if "x264new.exe". Well, unless you want to install a modified version of the server software too :p

In fact the best way would be to apply the update to a test server fist and test it there, before it goes to the public servers...

[Nightshiver]

Has anyone checked out vreel.net? I actually like it a lot, as it uses the Divx codec and is a replacement for the Divx streaming site that went down a few months/years ago, as thus offers HD resolution and playback.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Future belongs to AVC not ASP. Especially when we need good quality at low bitrate (2Mbps for 720p)

But imagine somebody copies a defunct or incompatible x264.exe to all the Youtube servers, which causes all these servers to fail and go down
Facebook uses r1019 and I see no disaster :) If x264 was compiled for pentium 2 I see no reason why new build would crash! Especially when doom9.org users do not report any problems. That guy gets nice salary every month and he still cannot update ONE f****** .exe !!?!?! If I was his boss he would loose job at once!

[2Bdecided]

Vimeo HD: 1280×720 - 1.7mbit/s VP6 - full framerate - 44hz 128kbit/s mp3 stereo audioVimeo is capped at 24fps - that's only "full frame rate" if your video is 24fps or less. e.g 25fps gets one frame dropped per second to make it 24fps.

...I guess none of the services is "full frame rate" if you try to upload 1280x720p50! 30p is the highest on facebook and YouTube.

Cheers,
David.

[MilSF]

In fact the best way would be to apply the update to a test server fist and test it there, before it goes to the public servers...

... and also test any new settings to see how they play on grandma's PIII with 256M of RAM and antique video card. I've run into that problem myself. "Hey look at this great quality, low bitrate video! Oh, well, I guess you can't really..." :D

[Sagekilla]

Hey, I have an old P3 (800~ MHz?) running on 512 MB of RAM that I use as a server occasionally and it actually runs SD resolution x264 content with CoreAVC flawlessly. CPU usage is somewhere around 60 - 70%. I bet if I really tried to, I could coax maybe 1024x576 out of it.

[FragmentsRevised]

Has anyone checked out vreel.net? I actually like it a lot, as it uses the Divx codec and is a replacement for the Divx streaming site that went down a few months/years ago, as thus offers HD resolution and playback.

Thanks for that! I was a big fan of stage6 and was upset to see it go, nice to find another similar site!