YouTube Now Supports 4K (4096x2304) Video

Status
Not open for further replies.

bv90andy

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
391
0
18,930
tried it last week... cpu at 98-99% (phenom iix2) Might be good for eyefinity... but it's not cool to watch videos with monitor bezels cutting the picture. So this is useless for most of us. Also it's not that sharp because youtube HD has artifacts from coding-decoding, and where there is fast movement you can clearly see pixelation.
 

Kahless01

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2009
46
0
18,580
i watched one last week and the comments section was hilarious. bunch of apple fanbois saying that they could see the full resolution on their macbook pro's and that PC's couldnt possibly see what they saw. my aspire 8942 watched it with no problems, other than the usual youtube artifacts. 1080p was just as good and didnt take all damn day.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
651
0
18,930
[citation][nom]soo-nah-mee[/nom]Nice! Although most people's bandwidth won't come close to streaming this without buffering every 10 seconds.[/citation]

10 seconds? for me it takes 40 seconds JUST to load half a second!
 

MrHectorEric

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2009
31
0
18,580
I guess now monitor manufacturers are going to have to start finding ways to make smaller panels that can use this resolution. Hopefully ISP's will up their game to support the bandwidth, rather than just charging people more for trying to view the videos.
 

EvilMonk

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
20
0
18,560
By the way, if most of you guys tried it, on 1080p display, like Kahless01 did, its normal you dont see any quality increase, you watch 4096p on a 1080p display, its never going to be better than the resolution your screen supports.
 

EvilMonk

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
20
0
18,560
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So, all I have to do now is find a monitor that can support 4096 x 2304 ** Or ** Get a 6 monitor Eyefinity setup, each monitor capable of 1600 x 1200 ** and ** Bezel-less for ease on the eye.Either that or just buy myself an iMax setup at home...Speaking of which, when is Steve Jobs going to sue the cinema business for using iMax? Isn't everything with an "i" in front of it his?[/citation]
like iNTEL? :p
 

halls

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2010
63
0
18,580
Just tried watching a 4k video on this Pentium 4 that I use at work - not a chance. At least the resulting slideshow had some nice pictures.
 

wotan31

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2009
169
0
18,630
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So, all I have to do now is find a monitor that can support 4096 x 2304 ** Or ** Get a 6 monitor Eyefinity setup, each monitor capable of 1600 x 1200 ** and ** Bezel-less for ease on the eye.[/citation]
Or you could just buy a real monitor. Like an IBM T221. This LCD monitor has been out for almost 10 years now, since 2001, and can do 3840×2400 natively.
 

wotan31

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2009
169
0
18,630
[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]10 seconds? for me it takes 40 seconds JUST to load half a second![/citation]
Time to upgrade from that US Robotics 56k modem you're using. I have Comcast 50 Mbit service, video loaded in real time for me! :)
 

requiemsallure

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2009
107
0
18,630
by the way, is it me or is their math way off, they say its 4 times what they allowed before? 1080p, or 1920x1080 is a little more than half of 4096x2304

correct me if i am wrong of course.
 

maraque

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2009
1
0
18,510
[citation][nom]Requiemsallure[/nom]by the way, is it me or is their math way off, they say its 4 times what they allowed before? 1080p, or 1920x1080 is a little more than half of 4096x2304correct me if i am wrong of course.[/citation]
1920 X 1080 is 2073600 pixels, and 4096 X 2304 is 9437184 pixels.
So 9437184 pixels is is 4 times the number of pixels. 9437184 divined by 2073600 is 4.55.
 

blasterth

Distinguished
May 14, 2009
53
0
18,580
Is there a reason for not using the 3840 x 2160 resolution?

I find the name 4k a bit misleading. I think 2k, 8M or 9M would have been more appropriate!
 

Snipergod87

Distinguished
May 26, 2009
419
1
19,010
I just tested out one of the 4k video's and my E6550 @ 2.33 Cant render the video without skipping alot of frames. My CPU usage jumps to 100% darn you flash!
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
75
0
18,580
[citation][nom]EvilMonk[/nom]By the way, if most of you guys tried it, on 1080p display, like Kahless01 did, its normal you dont see any quality increase, you watch 4096p on a 1080p display, its never going to be better than the resolution your screen supports.[/citation]


Yes, it downscales to whatever resolution you're using.

On another note, I already saw this 4k naming scheme bringing a big confusion. It's not 4000p, it's 2304p.

Unlike 4k, it's not a very catchy name to put on the bezel of an HD TV set in a few years, but at least it doesn't bring on confusion to the general consumers (imagine, if people here and in other tech forums do it, it will be much worse out there).

Let's keep coherent with the criteria applied to all other smaller resolutions (240p, 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p) and call it 2304p instead of 4k.

This is one prime example why people who are not very tech savvy - think our mothers, for example, will tell us that stuff in the computer realm bears no sense of intuition. And in this case they're absolutely right. Let make it easy, instead of bringing 4k just because for the marketing people it sounds better than 2304p, shall we ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.