YouTube Announces 60fps Videos

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The YouTube Creators Blog announced new features for videos including the YouTube Creator Studio app, fan funding and support for 60fps videos.

60 (yeah, six-zero) frames per second: Your video game footage with crazy high frame rates will soon look as awesome on YouTube as it does when you’re playing, when we launch support for 48 and even 60 frames per second in the coming months. Take a look at some preview videos on the YT Creator Channel. Make sure you’re watching in HD!
Click to expand...
 
Comcast Vampire Blog just posted, "HaHa, yeah right. Youtube/Google, you going to pay us to not throttle your shit?"
 
yay more buffering (yeah I'm one of those "few" individuals who doesn't have a 25+Mbps connection)
 
I have a 50Mbps from Comcast, just recently signed up for Netflix to watch House of Cards. Takes about a minute to buffer at first, will often drop back out to buffer again for a minute, and is probably in SD the majority of the time, not HD.

FU Comcast.
 
sfsuphysics said:
yay more buffering (yeah I'm one of those "few" individuals who doesn't have a 25+Mbps connection)
Click to expand...

TwistedAegis said:
I have a 50Mbps from Comcast, just recently signed up for Netflix to watch House of Cards. Takes about a minute to buffer at first, will often drop back out to buffer again for a minute, and is probably in SD the majority of the time, not HD.

FU Comcast.
Click to expand...

Even if you had a 25+Mbps connection you'd probably still get buffering because of that cable company fuckery John Oliver talked about :(
 
TwistedAegis said:
I have a 50Mbps from Comcast, just recently signed up for Netflix to watch House of Cards. Takes about a minute to buffer at first, will often drop back out to buffer again for a minute, and is probably in SD the majority of the time, not HD.

FU Comcast.
Click to expand...

Yep, me too. And things that they haven't caught onto yet go just fine... HATE them...
 
60fps doesn't really take that much more data rate. So if your provider works on with 1080p30 videos, 1080p60 should be no real issue. If they are fucking you over, well then nothing will change :p.

As a simple example you can look at the AVCHD 2 spec/cameras. They shoot 1080p30 at 24mbps, and 1080p60 at 28mbps. Both clearly higher than you are using on Youtube, but the thing to note is the small difference in bitrate. It doesn't take a lot more data for the additional frames, since they don't have a ton of difference in them and thus can be compressed pretty efficiently.
 
Sycraft said:
60fps doesn't really take that much more data rate. So if your provider works on with 1080p30 videos, 1080p60 should be no real issue. If they are fucking you over, well then nothing will change :p.

As a simple example you can look at the AVCHD 2 spec/cameras. They shoot 1080p30 at 24mbps, and 1080p60 at 28mbps. Both clearly higher than you are using on Youtube, but the thing to note is the small difference in bitrate. It doesn't take a lot more data for the additional frames, since they don't have a ton of difference in them and thus can be compressed pretty efficiently.
Click to expand...

Correct. This is because of the way video codecs work. Each frame is built on the differences from the prior frame. When you have a high frame-rate, the difference between frames is much smaller so it takes much less data per frame.
 
okashira said:
Correct. This is because of the way video codecs work. Each frame is built on the differences from the prior frame. When you have a high frame-rate, the difference between frames is much smaller so it takes much less data per frame.
Click to expand...

Not each frame, but many of them. For AVC streaming video, it is a pretty long sequence. Half the framerate. So for 30fps, there is 1 frame that is compressed on its own, like a picture (called and I-frame) and then 14 difference frames. For 60fps it'll be 1:29.

Also, not only are the frames built on prior frames, but they can be built on successive ones as well. Sounds a little strange but it works :). So you have three kinds of frames: I-frames, which are just a compressed picture, P-frames, which are built off the previous frame, and B-frames, which are built off the previous and next frame.
 
The fan funding and 60 fps (I like 48 fps better for this purpose, which is also included) sound like excellent new features on YouTube to me. I just worry about Let's Play people that are barely holding on having to upgrade their systems to provide expected quality to their audience. Once you taste that sweet real-time nectar, it is hard to go back.
 
High framerates are stupid. The sense of motion you get is completely different from reality and kills all immersion. I can deal with it in gameplay, but high framerate movies and cutscenes make me want to puke.
 
Youtube limits how much they allow to buffer, which means 1080p 60fps will basically be impossible to achieve for the majority of customers, since their ISPs will never provide them the promised connection speeds (except in a test to speedtest.net of course).
 
I just want higher quality YouTube videos, forget the 60 fps. Anything that's fast moving, and by fast moving, I mean just moving, gets horribly compressed and is painful to watch.
 
Megalith said:
High framerates are stupid. The sense of motion you get is completely different from reality and kills all immersion. I can deal with it in gameplay, but high framerate movies and cutscenes make me want to puke.
Click to expand...

I don't care for it in movie/television and I don't care for it in games either. I would rather they capped the game at 30 fps and used the saved overhead to make the game actually look nicer and more immersive. That Battlefield Hardline may have been 60 fps, but I thought it looked like shit.
 
percydaman said:
I don't care for it in movie/television and I don't care for it in games either. I would rather they capped the game at 30 fps and used the saved overhead to make the game actually look nicer and more immersive. That Battlefield Hardline may have been 60 fps, but I thought it looked like shit.
Click to expand...

If my iinfo is right, the difference between video at 30 frames per second vs 60 frames per second is vastly noticeable and preferred in games vs video. Video does tghe aforementioned tricks and i think some others to make video smooth between frames, whereas in a video they draw everything each frame. thus video games require higher frames to be smoother.. 3dfx had a great ball bouncing demo years ago that easily demonstrated 15, 30, 60, and 120.
 
percydaman said:
I would rather they capped the game at 30 fps and used the saved overhead to make the game actually look nicer and more immersive.
Click to expand...
No. Just No. I don't like getting on the console hate banwagon but we have been putting up with this 30FPS limitation for too long. Gamers were getting tired of the shortcomings of the 360/PS3 and this new generation is the same thing all over because of anemic hardware. It's 2014; 60 FPS 1080p should be the average framerate and resolution in games. There is no debate, higher framerate and resolution are objectively better and given the right context contribute to better immersion.

Thank God that most games can be played at high refresh rates on PC.
 
Ducman69 said:
Youtube limits how much they allow to buffer, which means 1080p 60fps will basically be impossible to achieve for the majority of customers, since their ISPs will never provide them the promised connection speeds (except in a test to speedtest.net of course).
Click to expand...
Well you can still get non DASH playback for 720p videos meaning you can buffer those 100% but you have to force DASH playback off. DASH being their change to using a ton of smaller files vs 1 really big file, which also changed how you can buffer videos as now it only buffers a few of the smaller files counting that as a full buffer. The switch to DASH was to save bandwidth so youtube doesn't buffer more for people who don't watch full videos or skip around in videos. But yeah this is going to add like 30% more to the file sizes unless youtube wants to drop IQ for the sake of more frames which frankly already does poorly with high change scenes.
 
Sycraft said:
60fps doesn't really take that much more data rate. So if your provider works on with 1080p30 videos, 1080p60 should be no real issue. If they are fucking you over, well then nothing will change :p.

As a simple example you can look at the AVCHD 2 spec/cameras. They shoot 1080p30 at 24mbps, and 1080p60 at 28mbps. Both clearly higher than you are using on Youtube, but the thing to note is the small difference in bitrate. It doesn't take a lot more data for the additional frames, since they don't have a ton of difference in them and thus can be compressed pretty efficiently.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know anything about encoding. Double FPS requires near double the bitrate to be transparent to the 30 fps counterpart. Don't believe me? Go test it with an AVC encoder.. I recommend x264 its free and used by alot of Professional Studios.
 
_PixelNinja said:
No. Just No. I don't like getting on the console hate banwagon but we have been putting up with this 30FPS limitation for too long. Gamers were getting tired of the shortcomings of the 360/PS3 and this new generation is the same thing all over because of anemic hardware. It's 2014; 60 FPS 1080p should be the average framerate and resolution in games. There is no debate, higher framerate and resolution are objectively better and given the right context contribute to better immersion.

Thank God that most games can be played at high refresh rates on PC.
Click to expand...
Well you better get used to the idea for consoles, which can largely dictate standards (just look at how many PC game ports are hard-capped at 30fps). We're not even out of the first year of Xbox One and PS4 and neither system can do 1080p@60fps except on graphically lower-demanding games. Microsoft has already said they plan for this console to last 10 years, so whoop de doo.
 
_PixelNinja said:
No. Just No. I don't like getting on the console hate banwagon but we have been putting up with this 30FPS limitation for too long. Gamers were getting tired of the shortcomings of the 360/PS3 and this new generation is the same thing all over because of anemic hardware. It's 2014; 60 FPS 1080p should be the average framerate and resolution in games. There is no debate, higher framerate and resolution are objectively better and given the right context contribute to better immersion.

Thank God that most games can be played at high refresh rates on PC.
Click to expand...

I've played games at both 30fps of course as well as 60 fps. 60 fps felt nice and all, but it wasn't a game breaking difference for me. I'm mostly saying that 60 fps shouldn't come at the expense of a minimal game graphic quality. 60 fps isn't cost free. You usually have to give up something for those extra 30 fps.
 
For GAMES the more FPS the better because the image is Rendered in real time
60 FPS or greater should be the goal
30 FPS is the bare minimum because anything less sucks.
Locking Rendered frames to the Refresh rate of the display is the purpose of nvidia gsync technology

For VIDEO 24 and 30 FPS looks good for real life video
Does 48 and 60 FPS look better or worse?
I think they all look good although I do prefer 60 fps video.

Why 60 FPS support for YouTube Video?
Because YouTube is attempting to provide the best Video streaming service to its customers as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top