YouTube - Announces Support For 4K Video Resolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 5, 2009
10,195
0
0
goo.gl
#1


http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/09/youtube-partner-program-4k/

YouTube is adding support for video shot in the 4K video format — a very high resolution that clocks in at 4096 x 3072, or 4096p). And it’s also creating a new $5 million Partner Grants program that’s meant to help spur the creation of original content on YouTube by funding promising video ventures.

In a blog post, YouTube writes that the goal of the Grants program “is to act as a catalyst by infusing additional funds into the production budgets of a small group of YouTube partners who are at the forefront of innovation” and says that these funds will be serving as “an advance against the partner’s future revenue share”.

Here how the program works:

* YouTube is identifying eligible partners based on factors such as video views, subscribers, growth rate, audience engagement and production expertise
* Selected partners are contacted by YouTube and invited to submit a Grant proposal
* Proposals are evaluated by YouTube based on signals which include projected performance, distribution plan, marketing plan, cost requirements and appeal to advertisers
* If approved, funds are transferred to the partner so they can get started on their project
The future is now!!

I can't wait for my 4096p TV, making my Wii HD look like is connected through RCA. :lol

YouTube says that the ideal screen size for 4K video is 25 feet.
 
Dec 2, 2007
7,398
0
0
#3
this will never work in many countries due to monthly bandwith caps
how fucking HUGE would the average 10 min video be at that resolution?

several GB's?
fuck that
 
Jul 20, 2009
13,184
0
0
#4
MrHicks said:
this will never work in many countries due to monthly bandwith caps
how fucking HUGE would the average 10 min video be at that resolution?

several GB's?
fuck that
I must be doing something wrong then, my five-minute 400*240 videos clock in at two GBs... :(
 
May 12, 2006
26,793
4
0
#6
What the fuck? I mean, great that they're doing it because it's cool, but it's not like anybody will be able to use this kind of tech until quite a while from now.
 
Dec 8, 2008
72,323
1
0
Miami, FL
#13
3K and 4K are what excite me most in the future of "HD".

people that are impressed by those "retina" displays on their iPhones know that these resolutions are damn near retina displays for big ass televisions.

WANT.

will upgrade when this technology becomes available on TV at a reasonable price. not before (fuck 3D).
 
Mar 3, 2007
13,194
0
0
#15
androvsky said:
Avatar was shot at 2K? :(

Good 4K content is so stinkin' hard to find, believe me.
Because it's a pain to throw around a network. The new live action Pixar film has a huge opening shot and they don't even know how to pipeline that for IMAX.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Nov 5, 2005
52,177
0
0
SF Bay Area
#18
Also don't forget that for many movies, what's actually shot is much bigger than what ends up being displayed on the screen in the end. So it would eventually get cropped to the proper aspect ratio, but still retain the resolution.
 

jett

D-Member
Jun 6, 2004
98,879
1
1,575
#21
:lol What for when their 720p and 1080p video quality is total trash? How about you work on your codecs first, youtube.
 
Jul 7, 2009
46,557
0
0
#23
jett said:
:lol What for when their 720p and 1080p video quality is total trash? How about you work on your codecs first, youtube.
This.

1080p YouTube is slow as all fuck. 4k? Yeah, I got all day....

Though, I have some 1080p footage I could upscale to 4k to see if the loss in picture quality is very significant.

If not, then it would be easy and routine for me (and others) to convert to 4k footage.

I capture at 2560x1600 and 60 frames per second off my computer already.
 
Mar 13, 2009
10,187
0
0
#26
DennisK4 said:
What is the purpose of that pic :lol

It just a low res pic resized to 4k.

Joke?
The joke is that he's some annoying douche who is ALWAYS on the front page of youtube, and youtube "HD" quality is a blurry mess because they simply don't have the bandwidth to do decent encodes at high resolution.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Jun 8, 2004
21,854
1
0
#31
jett said:
:lol What for when their 720p and 1080p video quality is total trash? How about you work on your codecs first, youtube.
Hey, how 'bout you work on those codecs, Mr. Negativity, and Youtube will move onto bigger fish to fry... Much bigger fish that need 25 ft screens to see frying properly.
 
May 31, 2006
6,580
0
0
#32
That's neat, I guess, but honestly, the move to this resolution is not even really that noteworthy to me. I guess 1080p is just good enough for me right now. :\
 
Apr 14, 2007
3,393
0
0
#36
jett said:
:lol What for when their 720p and 1080p video quality is total trash? How about you work on your codecs first, youtube.
Thank you. I was going to post, "How about they work on not compressing the hell out of my 1080p video?"
 
Feb 21, 2007
13,309
1
1,055
UK
#38
4K? Pff...

Warner's been remastering its classics at 8K (4320p) where it takes up 160MB per frame and a full movie is over 20TB. I want Wizard of Oz on that, please.

Good luck making an 8K master of a digitally shot movie. Yay for film!
 
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
#39
NekoFever said:
4K? Pff...

Warner's been remastering its classics at 8K (4320p) where it takes up 160MB per frame and a full movie is over 20TB. I want Wizard of Oz on that, please.

Good luck making an 8K master of a digitally shot movie. Yay for film!
35mm doesn't have any where near 8K worth of data. You might get significant benefit from some 65mm stuff like 2001, but for the most part, it's pointless.
 
Nov 26, 2005
259
0
0
#41
StuBurns said:
60, lets not half arse this. Straight to the good shit.
That would be terrible :(. High FPS is only good for slow motion. RED EPIC for example has burst fps rates in the 200's.

At high frame rates film simply no longer looks like film.

RE: 35mm, it resolves around 3k worth of measurable resolution.
 
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
#43
chumps said:
That would be terrible :(. High FPS is only good for slow motion. RED EPIC for example has burst fps rates in the 200's.

At high frame rates film simply no longer looks like film.
Such limited thinking. Considering there have been basically no films shot at higher framerates, to already write the concept off is very strange. The limited material done at higher framerates, such as IMAX HD (only 48fps) things, have been very well received.

There is some Avatar footage done at 60fps, not been released yet, but I would not be surprised to see it on a bluray special edition at some point, and I don't doubt it is breathtaking. Cameron's complaints about motion artifacting and strobbing are completely correct. Of course you could just not have quick pans or falling debris, play within the limits of the 24fps, or we could just bin that shit and move on.
 

curls

Wake up Sheeple, your boring insistence that Obama is not a lizardman from Atlantis is wearing on my patience 💤
Aug 17, 2007
1,782
0
0
Iceland
#44
Dreams-Visions said:
3K and 4K are what excite me most in the future of "HD".

people that are impressed by those "retina" displays on their iPhones know that these resolutions are damn near retina displays for big ass televisions.

WANT.

will upgrade when this technology becomes available on TV at a reasonable price. not before (fuck 3D).
Unless you plan to gaze at your TV right up close like you do when looking at an oil painting then no. It's pointless for a TV viewed from a couch.
 
Oct 18, 2006
15,573
0
1,135
Flanders
#46
Anything for their clients.

Meanwhile, the users suffer.

- they removed the ability to disable comments
- they removed the "dim" feature where everything but the video gets dimmed
- their search is terrible; every time you enter a new term, the parameters reset
- even the lowest resolution video sometimes fails to buffer / load / stream properly
- half the official content isn't viewable outside of the US
- etc.
 
Nov 16, 2006
78,207
0
0
steamcommunity.com
#49
jett said:
:lol What for when their 720p and 1080p video quality is total trash? How about you work on your codecs first, youtube.
Seriously.



EmCeeGramr said:
That's a nice slideshow.

fake edit: wait shit, that's supposed to be a video? :eek:

"But will it run 4K youtube vids" is the new "but will it run Crysis maxed out".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.