Youtube is now accepting 1080P files

[demistate]

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/2009/11/1080p-hd-comes-to-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)

[poisondeathray]

3.5Mbps for 1080p30 = look very bad.

[dvy]

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 .

[Dark Shikari]

It is trash,Realtime stream 1080P is infeasibleGood thing they're not actually doing real-time streaming, but rather progressive download.HTML5So, since this is progressive download--just like Flash, except unsupported by 90% of browsers?

[Tagert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe8DuCy5PU&fmt=37
A better sample for 1080p,

[demistate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGe8DuCy5PU&fmt=37
A better sample for 1080p,

What kind of camera did you take it with? Not all cameras resolve 4:4:4 data on 1920x1080.

[dvy]

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.

[Blue_MiSfit]

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...


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

[demistate]

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

[Blue_MiSfit]

Good point! I misinterpreted you!

[CpT]

Good thing they're not actually doing real-time streaming, but rather progressive download.

Can you imagine that via rtmp lol.

[Blue_MiSfit]

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

[CpT]

The CDN is the easy part, its the client's 'internets' that would puke.

[Dark Shikari]

Here's more of a challenge: stream 1080p with an end-to-end latency of under 50ms.

[CpT]

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.

[Dark Shikari]

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 ;)

[CpT]

A live stream at those rates :eek:

[Seraphic-]

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.

[CruNcher]

And to playback it http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

[Schrade]

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.

[Flux]

Is it only me or Youtube converts all HD resolution videos to 30 fps? This was not the case couple months ago. It accepted at least 25 fps and 23.976 fps without forced conversion.

[2Bdecided]

While they're adding things that most people can't play back, I'd really like to see 50fps and 60fps capability. Not for 1080p - just for normal+HQ modes (and maybe 720p HD mode).

For home movies, YouTube HQ would be a good source for a DVD (or DVD-like quality) - but only if 50fps was available. Otherwise everything gets the fake-flimic stutter look of 25p.

Cheers,
David.

[zilog jones]

Some people have got 50/60fps normal quality videos on YouTube via some trickery, but the resolution and bitrate are too low IMO. I don't think it's possible with HQ video.

I think a more viable option (considering bandwidth) would be to handle interlaced SD video properly, but I don't know if it would be possible to implement some form of bob deinterlacing with the Flash player.

[cogman]

Here's more of a challenge: stream 1080p with an end-to-end latency of under 50ms.

Unpossible. Especially where I live (out in the middle of nowhere) You would basically have to be using the same ISP as the broadcaster for it to even be feasible.

[2Bdecided]

Some people have got 50/60fps normal quality videos on YouTube via some trickery, but the resolution and bitrate are too low IMO.Thanks - I didn't know that, but Google found from relevant threads.

Looks like that YouTube loophole is closed now - and I agree - the quality was lousy!

Decent quality 60fps SD would require a lower bitrate than the 720p HD they do now, so why not provide it as an (official) option?

(maybe the flash video player plug-in just can't keep up for most people? but that's also true for 1080p, and they've just launched that!)

Cheers,
David.

[smileBhappy]

LOL I have to wonder if my countries internet infrastructure could handle all this bandwidth. They were complaining when the BBC launched the iPlayer

[Flux]

1920x1080p60 with no chroma subsampling, quality compared to x264 CRF 18 encode and <100 ms latency. A distant dream for "crystal clear" video chatting.

[Blue_MiSfit]

@Flux:

For the second time in this thread - chroma subsampling is NOT a bad thing!! It's only a bad thing during post-production, where mathematical precision is necessary.

For final distribution encoding, even converting RGB to YV12 is perceptibly lossless, provided the proper process is followed to convert back to RGB (i.e. decent upsampling, correct matrix etc).

~MiSfit

[2Bdecided]

I think that's going a bit far. If you have super fine chroma details, RGB>YV12 certainly isn't perceptually lossless. If you're encoding the output of a PC screen, it can make quite a difference. It's not so visible on typical video from a camera - usually invisible, but not always.

Cheers,
David.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Possible, sure.

I did download the PNG sequence for Big Buck Bunny, and did some comparison on the RGB24 source vs YV12 -> RGB24, and was quite unable to spot a difference in normal viewing modes. Looking at R, G, and B components was another story, of course!

I'd agree there's potential for obvious difference with screen capture.

Also, it's very important to do good chroma upsampling on playback!!

~MiSfit

[sumawo13]

chroma subsampling is NOT a bad thing!!

Missing half the color information isn't bad?

I mean I understand we're less sensitive to color and all, but I can clearly see pixelation in some videos on YouTube, especially in bright reds.

[2Bdecided]

I mean I understand we're less sensitive to color and all, but I can clearly see pixelation in some videos on YouTube, especially in bright reds.That's probably bitrate starvation, or possibly poor decoding.

Chroma-subsampling makes the chroma a little soft - not blocky or pixelated (if decoded correctly).

Many encoders trash the chroma channels as they run out of bitrate, giving a blocky look on chroma edges. This isn't caused by 4:2:0 chroma, and could still happen with low bitrate 4:4:4 chroma.

Cheers,
David.

[Dark Shikari]

That's probably bitrate starvation, or possibly poor decoding.

Chroma-subsampling makes the chroma a little soft - not blocky or pixelated (if decoded correctly).It's flash's YV12->RGB converter that's the problem. Nothing to do with encoding or decoding.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Yep. This is such a common problem, it's disgusting it still exists with many video apps...

:@

~MiSfit

[sumawo13]

It's flash's YV12->RGB converter that's the problem. Nothing to do with encoding or decoding.

Thanks for the tip. I notice the same thing if I uncheck High Quality YV12 to RGB conversion in FFDShow.

[Flux]

Is there any quality differences between ffdshow High Quality YV12 to RGB conversion and Media Player Classic HC YV12 Chroma Upsampling shader?

[invisible]

Is it only me or Youtube converts all HD resolution videos to 30 fps? This was not the case couple months ago. It accepted at least 25 fps and 23.976 fps without forced conversion.

youtube has always converted videos to stupid framerates. This is why I like vimeo (too bad not much content variety on there). And 1080 at such low bitrates looks terrible anyways. They're just doing it to advertise it. I hope they don't get rid of the option for 720p because it's a much better middle ground. I won't be uploading 1080 videos anytime soon unless the overall internet evolves into hyperspeed and youtube jacks up the bitrate, which is unlikely soon.

But anyways, I've been using greasemonkey and a gnome-mplayer script (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771) to replace the flash player (on linux). With that and vdpau, any hd video on there can be handled smoothly (except videos with the ad scheme, which seems to break things). Or at least it would be, but right now gtk seems to cause a bug which makes vdpau unusable on gnome-mplayer. :mad:

[2Bdecided]

youtube has always converted videos to stupid framerates. This is why I like vimeo (too bad not much content variety on there).Vimeo messes with frame rates!

For most of its life, it's been 24p.

Upload 25p or 30p, and it drops frames to get it down to 24p. Not acceptable IMO. I have to slow down my 25p content (and then increase the pitch of the audio!) to make it work well on Vimeo!

Cheers,
David.

[audyovydeo]

mmmh, I've just uploaded my first video since, what, 8 months ?
720x480@29.97fps (h264.mp4)
I downloaded it & it's been converted to 540x360@60fps
WTF ??!!

audyovydeo

[invisible]

Vimeo messes with frame rates!

For most of its life, it's been 24p.

Upload 25p or 30p, and it drops frames to get it down to 24p. Not acceptable IMO. I have to slow down my 25p content (and then increase the pitch of the audio!) to make it work well on Vimeo!

Cheers,
David.

I think it's 24000/1001, and at least it's more natural to a lot of content. Most of the video I work with is in this form. youtube otoh, just turns everything that's SD into nonsensical frame rates and I think into plain NTSC rate 29.970 for HD.

[2Bdecided]

I know YouTube are doing something strange with 1080p now (I assume it's a bug?), but what have you seen them do with SD? IME things at 30p or lower just stay at their original frame rate.

Cheers,
David.

[zilog jones]

I've uploaded PAL and NTSC sourced stuff and the original framerates have been maintained, but sometimes playback can be dodgy with HQ versions of HD uploads and I haven't uploaded anything since the addition of 1080p.

[invisible]

Looks like SD content isn't being changed to weird fps anymore, but a few months back it still was. Still, that leaves a lot of the previous content uploaded at weird framerates. Vimeo had it right long before.

[2Bdecided]

I've never seen this, and I've been uploading to YouTube for two years. I've never seen it reported either.

I think either you hit on a strange or obscure bug, or were mistaken.

Cheers,
David.

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

Something seems screwy with YouTube's 1080 mode. It looks like it's been deinterlaced or somthing. I threw together a 1080 clip and this is how it turned out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRiwIPm7Pzc

Watched it on IE and FF browsers and it looks the same. Anyone else getting this issue?

[zilog jones]

Ah, so that problem still persists. We noticed this before when 720p was the only HD option: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1298070
It seemed if you uploaded at YouTube's native vertical resolution (480p or 720p) it would apparently halve the vertical resolution. My workaround for this was uploading at even higher resolutions, e.g. I would upscale PAL video to 1152 which would result in pretty good 720p and 480p. If your native resolution is 720p or 1080p, chopping off a few pixels might work too.

[Yoshiyuki Blade]

Wow, that's rather strange. I even made a post in that thread but I guess I didn't really know what was going on lol. Too bad I didn't keep the source. <_< >_> Oh well, it gives me something to experiment with. Thanks.

[invisible]

I've never seen this, and I've been uploading to YouTube for two years. I've never seen it reported either.

I think either you hit on a strange or obscure bug, or were mistaken.

Cheers,
David.

If you're talking to me, then yeah, maybe I imagined every single time I saw a 40-something-fps video downloaded from youtube which I myself uploaded as regular 24000/1001. Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

[Die*wrek*show]

I've never seen this, and I've been uploading to YouTube for two years. I've never seen it reported either.

I think either you hit on a strange or obscure bug, or were mistaken.

Cheers,
David.

i have had at least one clear case of youtube shenanigans regarding this.

basically, i uploaded a certain video to youtube. no problems. months, maybe years? pass by, nothing happening with the video, it's just sitting there not many views but it works fine.

one day, i click on this old video, and the sound, which worked fine before, is now out of sync with the video.

youtube is a free service. at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.

[2Bdecided]

Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about.That happens a lot.

Though I've not uploaded 24p to YouTube myself (PAL-land here - all 25p), if it was regularly streaming it back at "40-something-fps", you'd think someone else would have commented, wouldn't you?

Cheers,
David.