YouTube Now Supports 4K (4096x2304) Video

[insider3]

Amazing that till this day some people still don't understand how display resolution works.

 

[mindless728]

hmmm, i was able to watch it with no dropped frames (Phenom II X4 810 @ 3GHz, about half load), though kind of idiotic when i don't have the screen for this

 

[gamesmachine]

Yeah plays fine on my Envy @ 1.6 GHz at about 1/3 to 1/2 load does my Radeon 5830 help with the decode? I don't think this 4K thing makes any sense if people here are trying to work out the number of pixels and getting conflicting numbers my parents minds will explode. 2304p is the way to go. shame its not as nice as a number as 1080p tho...

 

[waxdart]

I'd like to see that in an LCD 24" screen so I can get my PPI back.

My old lacie CTR used to be able to display resolutions far beyond my graphics card at the time. Shame work go rid of it.

http/xkcd.com/732/

 

[pocketdrummer]

They can't even stream the video content that have as it stands. Why go an raise the level?

 

[ezodagrom]

As always, tomshardware is laaaaaaaaaaaaaaate with news.

 

[ecmjr]

Overkill.

 

[eaclou]

Totally worthless

 

[sparrowmonk]

4K video on YouTube looks worse than video in 1080p or 720p on YouTube, but I think that's because whatever codec Google uses for it is not that great to begin with; of course that is just my humble opinion.

 

[Skid]

Damn it, its still not wide enough, I wanna upload at my monitors native resolution, 5040x1050. Still 4096x854 will take me bloody ages to upload on my 40KB/s upstream.

 

[Parsian]

time to buy a Red One camcorder ... in 2 years of savings

 

[dstln]

Too bad it's completely worthless as their videos down the whole line still need way more bitrate/better encoding. Hooray for artifacts everywhere. And they still don't give us any bandwidth for 1080p videos unless they're popular. I love waiting 10 minutes for a 2 minute video to load.

 

[magruder13]

[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]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![/citation]

I am jealous. My 3MBPS cant even load 720P Youtube without buffering every 15 seconds.

 

[Pyroflea]

I'm a fan of Hi-Def, don't get me wrong, but this is ridiculous. 1080p already looks better than real life does, so what's the point in improving on it? I know technology is always moving, but there has to be something else to work on...

 

[BulkZerker]

Anything more that 720 is overkill, yt need to chill on this ultra hd stuff.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]tpi2007[/nom]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[/citation]

Marketing will call it UHD for Ultra High Definition. Just like when HD came out they had few references to 720p or 1080p. Even though 480p has been in use for some time to define the resolution of DVD video playback it took some time for 1080p to catch on.

Whatever the consumer goes after will be what the market names it. So calling it 4K or UHD now won't matter if in 10 years everyone is looking for the HD2 screens or whatever name catches on.

 

[miloo]

oh sweet, that's pretty awesome

 

[Gin Fushicho]

4096, sweet. now if only they could fix the artifacting problems and get it too actually look clear.

Perhapes using HTML5 instead of flash?

 

[ksampanna]

Probably need a 100 Mbps seed box to stream this thing properly.

 

[bv90andy]

[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]
I have 10Mb/sec and it does not lag at ALL! I was quite impressed.