YouTube Now Supports 4K (4096x2304) Video

[ravewulf]

I have a 12Mbit connection, but YouTube is dead slow even at 480p. Other sites have used all the full bandwidth of our connection, but not YouTube. There must be too many people trying to get to it and clogging up YouTube's route to our area or something. Either that or Comcast is restricting YouTube's bandwidth like they were doing for BitTorrent.

 

[TheDuke]

you guys should try watching a raw 4k video
i tried to watch a raw 3840x2160 video and it was a slideshow bit it had a bitrate of 238 Mbps so it wasn't surprising

 

[bv90andy]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]I have a 12Mbit connection, but YouTube is dead slow even at 480p. [/citation]
It's definitely not youtube, I was quite impressed with their speeds in the last year. Of course videos which are not popular (old, without alot of views) are very slow, but popular videos get alot of bandwidth.

 

[azgard]

[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]

Not true, don't use max screen. Never looked at a zoomed picture before?

 

[agnickolov]

Well, it's called 4K for the horizontal resolution, 2K referring to HD (1080p is 1920 horizontal, almost 2K).

As far as watching on a computer, one would need 4 monitors in a 2x2 grid supporting 2048x1152 resolution. I vaguely remember Samsung released one such monitor a while back. A quick Google search find the Samsung 2342BWX 23" monitor (seems to be hard to find in stock).

 

[sylvia648]

[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]

Also with assholes like Comcast I'm sure it'll jack up your internet cap... 250GB goodbye.

 

[eddieroolz]

For now, we can't do anything with 4K resolution, but I surely hope screen resolutions would continue to increase until we reach 4K at some point.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

[citation][nom]Skid[/nom]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.[/citation]
Don't even try to brag about your "monitor" when it's just 3 crappy 22's side to side.

 

[Skid]

[citation][nom]doomsdaydave11[/nom]Don't even try to brag about your "monitor" when it's just 3 crappy 22's side to side.[/citation]
I said "monitors", and there 20" anyway. Besides I wasn't bragging, screencaps just don't look as good when you have to resize them to 1920x400.

 

[Guest]

That's not 4k video, that's 9Mpix video, or 2300p video.
4K is wrongly rated!

 

[lauxenburg]

[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]10 seconds? for me it takes 40 seconds JUST to load half a second![/citation]

I think its time for you to get FIOS.

 

[Guest]

I fail to see the point of this. Youtube still compresses the videos too much, to the point that you can't see any extra detail in the 1080p videos vs. their 720p versions (not even on huge 1080p plasma).

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Youtube's effort but they need to increase the bitrate setting on 1080p videos before they start dabbling in 4K.

98% of your average computer users don't have 30-inch Dell or Apple monitors with 2560x1600 resolution, let alone professional 4K monitors.

 

[cj_online]

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

Shouldn't it be "3072p" cuz of the "4096×3072" resolution?

 

[cyberkuberiah]

wonderful .

 

[cyberkuberiah]

with media , bigger is only better , as theoretically we are only limited by the bandwidth of our own mind to perceive reality . and that is a far milestone to reach !

 

[cyberkuberiah]

but this needs to be gpu accelerated now : my dual core at 2.0 ghz wasnt able to cut it at 1080p .