Video: YouTube finally enables 60fps for all users

html5 video is based on html5, which is a browser display protocol. How are you going to make it browser independent?
 
geeman said:
Google and people should take their heads out of their asses already and make html5 video be browser independent.
Click to expand...

Google/YouTube did nothing wrong, Chrome is just ahead of the game with supporting certain standards.
 
Viper007Bond said:
Google/YouTube did nothing wrong, Chrome is just ahead of the game with supporting certain standards.
Click to expand...
That's actually just the thing. It's not a standard at all. Google is just faster at supporting their own thing, obviously.

FPS is quite a stupid limitation too. The FPS should be in the meta data of the video and the codec should support any arbitrary FPS. How hard was it to figure out 2 years ago or something that people might want to stream 60fps video and include it back then already?

Well, yeah, Google/Youtube did nothing wrong, but they didn't do anything right either...
 
What the fuck are you on about? 60 fps requires higher bitrate, which means more bandwidth and more storage space. It's only now that the data centers have become beefy enough to support a jump in bitrate like this on such a scale. It would have been impossible to do a year or two ago. Or don't you remember all the buffering issues worldwide that came about when they started allowing 1080p when the people demanded it and not when the infrastructure was ready?
 
IceBone said:
What the fuck are you on about? 60 fps requires higher bitrate, which means more bandwidth and more storage space. It's only now that the data centers have become beefy enough to support a jump in bitrate like this on such a scale. It would have been impossible to do a year or two ago. Or don't you remember all the buffering issues worldwide that came about when they started allowing 1080p when the people demanded it and not when the infrastructure was ready?
Click to expand...
No, what the fuck are YOU on about? Bandwidth or storage has nothing to do with building codec with a support for arbitrary frame rates. They could have added the support two years ago and all the major browsers would have the support now when the infrastructure problems are solved. You know, preparing for the future is allowed even though you can't use all of the capabilities right now.
 
This has nothing to do with anything. HTML5 video is just a front-end for playing mp4 videos. mp4 has had support for these "arbitrary" framerates since its second revision in 2 thousand fucking 3.
 
IceBone said:
This has nothing to do with anything. HTML5 video is just a front-end for playing mp4 videos. mp4 has had support for these "arbitrary" framerates since its second revision in 2 thousand fucking 3.
Click to expand...
Why didn't they use that then?
 
They are using it. Full html5 instructions are only a few days old. Ask whoever took this fucking long. Probably w3.
 
I thought they use VP9 instead, at least for these 60fps videos.
 
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about 60fps video? I've basically never seen a YouTube video that needs it.

Maybe it makes game footage look more accurate. Maybe animation films are smoother-looking at 60fps... So I guess there is some novelty value to be found somewhere around there...

For television and movies I prefer 30fps and 24fps though. Supersmooth film just doesn't look natural to me. Reality is unrealistic etc.

Then again, I also like listening to vinyls and cassettes :D
 
Jupix said:
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about 60fps video? I've basically never seen a YouTube video that needs it.

Maybe it makes game footage look more accurate. Maybe animation films are smoother-looking at 60fps... So I guess there is some novelty value to be found somewhere around there...

For television and movies I prefer 30fps and 24fps though. Supersmooth film just doesn't look natural to me. Reality is unrealistic etc.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, what's you opinion on 100Hz + TVs? :)
 
Matt2000 said:
Just out of interest, what's you opinion on 100Hz + TVs? :)
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked. I own one (Sony 55X9005A) and instadisabled the high-hertz features upon first boot. Ditto for all other TV's in my life, my parents' TV's back in the day, etc.

I feel the "super motion" features just make the picture look unnatural/weird. Rendered stuff is supposed to look smooth... Film is supposed to look like film.
 
Last edited:
Jupix said:
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about 60fps video? I've basically never seen a YouTube video that needs it.

Maybe it makes game footage look more accurate. Maybe animation films are smoother-looking at 60fps... So I guess there is some novelty value to be found somewhere around there...

For television and movies I prefer 30fps and 24fps though. Supersmooth film just doesn't look natural to me. Reality is unrealistic etc.

Then again, I also like listening to vinyls and cassettes :D
Click to expand...
It's for bragging rights. My 60fps is faster than your 30fps. haha.

I liked 60fps on car/racing videos. To me, it just make it look more gooooder.
 
Matt2000 said:
Just out of interest, what's you opinion on 100Hz + TVs? :)
Click to expand...

120hz TV allow 24fps playback without trickery, something 60hz can't do.
 
For some reason this yt 60fps videos hurt my eyes when the video starts, but after couple of seconds it changes to video being displayed at 1,x speed or so.
I play everything without vsync, 100+ fps, no problem, i play quake live at fov 130 with 100or so fps, and none of these hurt my eyes or feel too fast :(
 
Gameplay video looks just fine to me, but real life footage is a bit odd. Then again, it's the creators' prerogative on how they want their video watched. You still get 30 fps in 480p, though.
 
Viper007Bond said:
Google/YouTube did nothing wrong, Chrome is just ahead of the game with supporting certain standards.
Click to expand...

The reason Firefox doesn't support it yet is because Google is using H.264 for the videos, which Mozilla never wanted to be used for web content due to patent issues (they wanted people to use open codecs like Theora or VP8/9, partially to avoid the licensing costs involved and partially due to ideological reasons). IIRC, the upcoming versions of FF still don't include native H.264 support, they just hook into decoders you have installed on your machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top