Users who Dugg This
Michael Stenger
82 Followers
MrSoloDolo
1615 Followers
Sheryl Hodge
784 Followers
Space Moose
84 Followers
@vishnumittal
2688 Followers
Victor Barrera
11006 Followers
"ⓒⓗⓡⓞⓝⓘⓒ!"
5595 Followers
harmorJul 9, 2010
My computer can't handle 4096p?
I'm trying to watch the video but it's stutters.
stoanhartJul 10, 2010
Core i5 w/ Radeon 4850 and 64bit Win7 here - buttery smooth. Not that it looks any better than 720p on my CRT screen...
asforonedayJul 10, 2010
Why do you have those specs and not an LCD screen?
stoanhartJul 10, 2010
Because my CRT works fine, and has better color, contrast, and viewing angles. It's not some s**tty 15" CRT I got second hand from a school.
Besides, those specs aren't that great - they were the very bottom of the high performance class when I bought the parts almost a year ago. Mobo+CPU+RAM+GPU cost less than $500.
digitalpencilJul 10, 2010
i've shot on Red One at 4K and playback is nigh impossible on a quad-core iMac.. you have to edit at 2K tops for anything usable.
This res via Flash or H5 will be unusable, not to mention. somewhat pointless given that screen res rarely ever climbs this high.
cysseroJul 10, 2010
Hardware acceleration should solve playback issues, not sure how HW accel. is going on Mac and Flash 10.1 though.
digitalpencilJul 10, 2010
yeah, it'll make a difference and your right, Flash doesn't have GPU acceleration on mac plugin (least of its worries on that OS IMO) but it should be getting there soon hopefully.
I'm talking about RAW playback via Redcode through FCP though which *is* hardware accelerated and as i said, it still struggles like a bitch. Amazing to play with though and the beauty of this format is it all works via reference points so you can make global alterations across all res, and transcode the render results.
Still, points stands. Playback support via YouTube for resolutions this high seems a tad premature given bandwidth and current consumer LCD panel restraints. Hopefully however, steps like these will accelerate adoption and progression.
stoanhartJul 10, 2010
I'm not surprised RAW playback is hard! The CPU does less work since there is no compression, but think of the bandwidth required for 60FPS at 4k resolution... and I bet the RAW format has a higher bit depth than the end result too.
gerryJul 10, 2010
@digitalpencil Proxies, bro. You only *really* need to show off the 4k when you need to impress the director / client. Otherwise, lower resolutions are fine for on set playback (for DITs) or editing.
willhzarJul 10, 2010
@gerry True dat
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Mine's like a slideshow.
homercles337Jul 10, 2010
Try it on your iPhone 4. Thats the Retina Display(tm), i bet it does that resolution...easy.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
retard alert
arkangel06Jul 10, 2010
I just hope that was sarcasm.
hazardcJul 10, 2010
Pretty obviously sarcasm.
charlotte_webJul 10, 2010
YouTube 4096p... Now with More Stuttering!
riolio11Jul 10, 2010
Flash can go screw itself...
barrettandersonJul 10, 2010
I have 4 monitors, so I can more or less actually show most of the theoretical pixels, but for some reason (not sure if it's just compensating for not having enough horsepower, or if the video itself isn't actually that high of quality), I still get a lot of pixelation.
http://calcg.org/4k.png
There's a screenshot of me attempting to get the video as big as possible. As you can see, it is in fact set on "Original."
consig1iereJul 10, 2010
I'm having exaclty the same prob as yours. I have good hw but still...
jordantneffJul 10, 2010
Ran fine for me and I don't even have an i7. I'm running a Phenom II X4 945 with 4GB of ram (DDR2 even). My CPU usage never went past 60%.
pahomiJul 10, 2010
It shutters for me too with a Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 4Ghz and HD5850...
thexderJul 10, 2010
Not even an IBM T220/221 can handle 4096p (3840x2400 in a 22" widescreen)
the 2560x1600 on my 30" Apple Cinema HD is nowhere near good enough.
lartonesJul 10, 2010
My 8800GT runs the full resolution like it was a movie that was shot in 20fps or less ha
confoundedjoeJul 10, 2010
I'm guessing the key here is GPU acceleration. If you don't have the newest drivers and flash 10.1 you would have some problems. My SLI'd GTS250s didn't even blink at it.
nspriggsJul 10, 2010
It ran fine for me on my AMD X2 4200+/9600 GSO. It was a pretty good slideshow. There were some nice pictures.
radekyJul 10, 2010
Core 2 Quad Q6600, 8GB RAM, 9800GTX+. Buttery smooth on 24".
proteusmoteusJul 10, 2010
Try using the FlashVideoReplacer plugin. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/161869/
Instead of using the flash player it uses whatever video player you have setup. VLC or whatever your setup is definitely going to run the video smoother.
gunit99Jul 10, 2010
Core i7 MacBook Pro FTW. The cores are cranking (f**king Flash Player for Mac), but it plays quite nicely.
ghdanaJul 11, 2010
My iMac can play it, my internet just can't get it here fast enough. It takes like 10 minutes just to load a 3 minute video in 1080.
slamsandwichJul 19, 2010
129ea7afa338000
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
We need a new meme
"But can it play 4k"
or even better, "Can it play Crysis on 4k?"
mpenetrabletacoJul 9, 2010
Wow, that looks pretty damn awesome considering I'm playing it on a 24" LCD 1080P monitor.
iamacyborgJul 10, 2010
In other words you're watching 1080p and the extra resolution is being wasted like the fat American you are. There are children in 3rd world countries that don't even have 480p and you're throwing ~2000 p's away like they're free.
dlan4327Jul 10, 2010
*laughter*
mrassmanJul 10, 2010
Actually it would be more like 3000 p's
eviljollyJul 10, 2010
You sound like my mother at the dinner table when I waste food...
kerrigoreJul 10, 2010
@eviljolly
I never understood that concept. How is not eating something you are too full to eat "wasting" it? It seems more egregious to me to stuff food in your face whether you want it or not.
"Hey 3rd world children, I know you're starving and imma let you eat, but first I gotta stuff this extra food in my face that I DON'T EVEN WANT!"
It's not as if by finishing your dinner it magically transports that food to a starving 3rd world child... or that by not finishing it you're somehow depriving them. The idea that we somehow have an onus of responsibility to not waste food simply because other people elsewhere are starving just seems kind of ridiculous. If you follow that line of reasoning, most of the things we spend our money on should also be considered a "waste" compared to donating it to charity to help starving people.
eointhegreatJul 10, 2010
@Kerrigore
The point is that if you weren't going to finish it, you should not have put it on your plate. If you didn't pile it on, it would still be in the serving dish; which would then go into the fridge for later.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
justinraluaJul 10, 2010
It looks great on two dell 30" 2560x1600 side by side =).
typeeeJul 10, 2010
4096p looks so much better on a 1080p monitor as compared to watching a 1080p youtube. Alright, back to 360p
srs2000Jul 9, 2010
Imagine the porn.....
mrteflonJul 10, 2010
Yeah you can see the implant scars under her armpits and the bikini line scars from the C-Sections umm No Thanks.
jaymulderJul 10, 2010
Your watching some f**ked up porn
srs2000Jul 10, 2010
Where the f**k do you get your porn? BargainBinPorn.com? RejectedPornStars.com? OldAndUsed.com?
darkstar3333Jul 10, 2010
Audrey Bitori has some really bad scars, can't think of any others.
doomesticJul 10, 2010
Erica Ellyson has pretty obvious boob job scars under her breasts.
gndoabJul 10, 2010
I'd rather not.
rmkrmkrmkJul 10, 2010
Zits.
norbiuJul 10, 2010
Ingrown hair.
grumpymonkJul 10, 2010
You think you hate stubble now.
jack2454Jul 10, 2010
i don't need to Imagine it, i could just watch it.
chronopublishJul 23, 2010
Hey look, all the same comments I remember seeing when the idea of "HD Porn" started floating around several years ago.
alienkidJul 25, 2010
You would be able to see the herpes
daridaveJul 26, 2010
Well, we're doing full 1080p right now, and it's pretty sick (in so many ways). I'll show this to my director, see what he thinks of it... but the hardware isn't there yet, so don't bet on it ...
diggmat1cJul 9, 2010
4096p... in flash? Good f**king luck.
audiologicJul 10, 2010
Ran fine for me (i5 / 330M) @ 45-55% CPU.
slos13Jul 10, 2010
no such thing YOU LIE!
jeffdJul 10, 2010
Ran fine for me too, AMD 550BE (4 cores unlocked OCd to 3.7Ghz each).
captininsanityJul 10, 2010
Flash is purely single threaded. More CPUs wont help you. Clock rate and ram speed are the only factors that would improve flash performance.
kerrigoreJul 10, 2010
@JeffD
I don't think processor is the issue here, it's graphics card that seems to be the deciding factor.
locheJul 10, 2010
@captininsanity well that's weird...I'm using an i7 930 (4 cores, 8 threads), and I can see that 4 threads are being used to playback these videos. CPU utilization is around 10 ~ 20% by the way.
captininsanityJul 11, 2010
I guess the Flash virtual machine does a lot more witchery than I though. The action script code you run is strictly single threaded, but they must split it over different threads somehow.
creationismlolJul 10, 2010
Ran s**tty for me (Apple IIe) @ 100000000 % CPU
macaw2000Jul 10, 2010
Silverlight or HTML5 will show 4096 on a decent computer. Flash video can't die soon enough in my book.
scy1192Jul 10, 2010
don't fool yourself... my PC struggles with anything above 720p in WebM but I can *almost* stream the 4K videos in Flash
scorch07Jul 10, 2010
Silverlight? No thanks.... But HTML5? Yes please!
theaceoffireJul 12, 2010
Silverlight doesn't work on linux or mac.
Flash sort of works.
HTML works fine.
stemninJul 10, 2010
Slightly choppy on my Q6600 (stock) 65-75% CPU.
pierrelourensJul 10, 2010
You can opt for HTML 5 on most youtube videos. youtube.com/beta
digitalpencilJul 10, 2010
i don't think Flash plugin vs H5 playback overheads are really going to make a difference here in frame drop rates..
generik777Jul 10, 2010
youtube.com/html5
tiduJul 10, 2010
HTML5 doesn't even support it. Gives me the option for 720p max.
tnoyJul 10, 2010
Flash now supports hardware accelerated H.264.
visionviperJul 10, 2010
Crashed my computer. f**k that s**t.
mtnxfreeriderJul 10, 2010
20% on my i7 920 quad core @ 3.2ghz
snareguy17Jul 10, 2010
Same setup and not a bit of slowdown. I love this processor.
v0rtJul 10, 2010
About 40% and smooth on my q6600. Hardware acceleration and video card(5850) probably help a lot though.
nubnubJul 10, 2010
60-70% on Phenom x4 9950
maliciousmoJul 10, 2010
Yeah, slowed my comp down to a crawl. I'd have better luck playing Crysis than watching 4k vids.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Phenom II x4 965? Anyone?
nateconqJul 10, 2010
yes sir. love it.
jordantneffJul 10, 2010
Got one here as well. It's a fantastic CPU for the price.
drgmdpJul 10, 2010
2-5 frames per second on a pentium D, no GPU
drgmdpJul 10, 2010
85% CPU
LOL
rushnerdJul 10, 2010
It doesn't matter what your computer is, Flash is NOT a good medium for high bitrates and resolutions this large.
pauliusuzaJul 10, 2010
That's test content for Flash Player 11
4dfxJul 10, 2010
Athlon II X4 620:
100% CPU, about 1 FPS
f**k flash.
mrassmanJul 10, 2010
I have basically that same processor and I get smooth playback.. using flash 10.1 and 9600gt GPU.
acegidJul 10, 2010
i7 920 6g ram
11%
no stutter
sclubdevinJul 10, 2010
this thread is designed to make poor people feel inadequate :(
seabookJul 10, 2010
Pentium Dual-Core E2180 (Allendale core, 1MB L2) and Radeon HD5750 with Flash 10.1.53.64
Stock 200x10 = 2.0GHz overclocked to 333x9 = 3.0GHz
Dropping frames with 90-100% CPU usage, Fraps measures roughly 8fps minimum (right at the beginning showing the foliage), 14fps average, 18fps maximum
Smooth 24fps at 1080p, about 35% CPU usage at full screen
tyrghastJul 10, 2010
Steve Jorbs told me Flash is bad and stuff, wakka wakka
hotpuck6Jul 10, 2010
my i3 handled it just fine, too bad pretty much the highest res most peoples displays can handle is 1080p.
untzboyJul 25, 2010
Pie is tasty.
Whatcha guys talkin' about?
thatspsychoticJul 26, 2010
choppy on Q8300 2.5 GHz... Nehalem chips must have some optimizations.
mwtappJul 9, 2010
Resolution is the red herring. Bah Humbug.
megorJul 10, 2010
From the article "So what this means is it will look *really* crisp on your 15″ laptop screen." Ummm no I don't think you understand how LCD works at all.
atarioJul 10, 2010
Ummm no I don't think you understand how sarcasm works at all.
iamacyborgJul 10, 2010
Sometimes when someone says something really dumb I pretend they're being sarcastic and in this way I am able to avoid depression.
atarioJul 10, 2010
I see I'm being buried by morons who don't recognize sarcasm even when it's pointed out. Let me see if I can bang my head against this brick wall a little harder, by pointing out the context of the supposed "stupid statement".
"Just to give some perspective on what exactly the size of 4K is, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet and IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors. So what this means is it will look *really* crisp on your 15″ laptop screen."
Oh, yes, *really* crisp. On your dinky. Tiny. Exactly the same resolution as before. Fifteen *inch* screen. It'll be *great*, I promise!
How any of you think the writer is not being sarcastic is frankly beyond comprehension.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scy1192Jul 10, 2010
That's not sarcasm. That's a joke.
scottussJul 10, 2010
Do remember that it is difficult to detect sarcasm on the web, not because it's often obvious but because many people (usually those that don't understand what sarcasm is) say something stupid, then say "oh I was being sarcastic" or "ha you're stupid, you didn't get that it was sarcasm!"
heatherlynn341Jul 10, 2010
Depending on the re-sampling method employed for the downsizing to the smaller screen it's quite likely you'd end up with a '*really* crisp' picture.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lordvanceJul 10, 2010
*Best* case scenario it would be only as good as a video playing at the native monitor resolution. The vast majority of the time, it would look worse.
High quality image resizing takes entirely too much time to stream live with equal quality to a pre-sized native video.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
If you don't mind elaborating and teaching for a minute, please explain...
Thanks
krieggerJul 10, 2010
If the resolution offered is beyond the resolution of your screen, it won't do anything as your screen has a limited amount of pixels it can show
For example, most recent LCD monitors will go to 1920x1080 for example, which means they can only show 1920 pixels per 1080 pixels. If the computer tries to send more data then that, that data will be lost as your screen cannot be more precise than that.
generic123Jul 10, 2010
I have this funny feeling that he *might* have been trying to be sarcastic
yourmanstanJul 10, 2010
actually 1080 looked more crisp... or at least somewhat less choppy. where's the 1440x900 option?
ldkronosJul 10, 2010
You expect youtube to resample and store every video at every native resolution possible? 1440x900 is less than 1080p resolution, so use 1080p.
roiperezJul 10, 2010
Anyone care to give me a quick explanation of what exactly this means? I'm not technologically retarded, just not sure what this means for video .. ?
joejitsuJul 10, 2010
It means the monitor will display 4096 lines per second progressively.
roiperezJul 10, 2010
Oh sweet. Thanks!
cdmarcusJul 10, 2010
Nice try. Not only are you giving a needlessly technical explanation when he asked for a simplified one, but you are dead wrong.
It means a much higher resolution -- so, similar to the difference between SDTV and HDTV, this is another step.
The article is a bit... misinformed about a few things, however, so I'm not sure how much to trust.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bosskeyJul 10, 2010
JoeJitsu, nice try. But "4096 lines" is wrong. It's 4096 columns.
4K (4096x3072) resolution means 3072 lines.
vuke69Jul 10, 2010
2K is actually 2048x1536
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
WRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG!
creationismlolJul 10, 2010
It means if you show porn on it, the veins will bulge.
jeffdJul 10, 2010
I was thinking they had something wrong in the description. A 4K camera does not record resolutions up to 4096p. When referring to a resolution in the XXXXp format (ie 1080p) the number refers to number of pixels in the vertical direction, not in the horizontal; a 4K camera on the other hand refers to a camera which can record ~4000 pixels in the horizontal. There are various types of 4K resolutions depending upon the intended media and aspect ratio chosen. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions for more details.)
mike648Jul 10, 2010
4096x3072 is the correct resolution, not 1096x3072
tnoyJul 10, 2010
The video is actually 4096x2304, according to the video information context menu.
themazzterJul 10, 2010
It depends on the video's aspect ratio. 4096p just indicates the width, not the height.
tnoyJul 10, 2010
'4096p' is a non-term that was pulled out their by whomever made this article. 4096p would imply that the video has 4096 horizontal lines and the screen is drawn progressively, which it isn't.
4096x2304 and 4096x3072 would be 2304p and 3072p, respectively. The proper term for the video's original resolution would be to call it "4K". You are correct in that 4096x3072 is 4:3, and 4096x2304 is 16:9. Likewise, with 2.35:1, it would be 4096x1742. The varying aspect ratios you find in movies has made the use of referring to the pixel width commonplace.
altanarJul 10, 2010
It's not drawn progressively? You're watching YouTube on an interlaced monitor?
black27696Jul 10, 2010
As long as it's typed correctly with the large number on the left. Otherwise youtube just started support a really f**ked up screen ratio.
mahdicJul 10, 2010
Who needs 4k resolution when you have eyes?
frostekJul 10, 2010
Weir - Where we're going you won't need eyes to see...
Miller - Yes, I know... Youtube.
Weir - You know nothing! Youtube is just a word... The reality is far, far worse!
Closed AccountJul 23, 2010
This would be more funny if it was Chatroulette instead of Youtube.
alexp2adJul 10, 2010
You mean you don't watch YouTube videos on an IMAX screen?
dollar0dot02Jul 24, 2010
I don't need 4k resolution when I have myopic eyes.
1badJul 10, 2010
Wouldn't it be 3072p?
lukasoJul 10, 2010
uh-huh
getoffmybridgeJul 10, 2010
Yeah but some people are dumb
frexxiaJul 10, 2010
It's usually called 4K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
blackjackjesterJul 10, 2010
yes, it would. This resolution is more commonly just known as '4k'
atarioJul 10, 2010
"4096p" appears to be made-up terminology. "4K" is the name of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
mouser58907Jul 10, 2010
Yes your right, it would be 3072p, but more commonly known by 4K. So basically the title is a typo...
mai9Jul 10, 2010
I knew there was a typo!
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
It's actually called 4k. Just ask anyone, they'll tell you.
kevenmJul 10, 2010
I asked my grandma and she looked at me funny.
arashamedaniJul 10, 2010
I asked Old Man Jones from across the street and he touched my peepee funny :(
volaitle86Jul 13, 2010
can't believe no one dugg up the old man jones comment
eluusiveJul 10, 2010
It would not be 3072p as that is the HORIZONTAL resolution.
If the article description was correct at all, it'd be 1096p... (And he's swapped the numbers it would be 3072x1096 unless youtube is supporting a resolution that is 3 times as tall as it is wide. )
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
poonchowJul 10, 2010
All these people claiming it is actually called 4K are just lying.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Well, the OP has a typo. It's 4096x3072, not 1096.
alienmushroomJul 10, 2010
Anything beyond 1096 is over the OP's buffer.
mattdellJul 10, 2010
Hey, I hear it's actually called 4K.
flbotavaraJul 10, 2010
And some people are just fond of adding "p" at the end of numbers without knowing what that means. Suddenly, all the resolution we used to know is just a number plus "p" even if the display is interlaced or otherwise.
crazyjoe123Jul 10, 2010
There's a rumour going around that it's called "4K" is this true??
volaitle86Jul 10, 2010
I was on a conspiracy website and they said something about it being called 4k. All my friends tell me I'm crazy, but I kinda believe it.
flintyJul 10, 2010
They need to up the bitrate not the resolution.
lukasoJul 10, 2010
yep
lonewolf01Jul 10, 2010
They need to up the framerate. Where the hell are my 60FPS videos?
tgc1Jul 10, 2010
Or 80 or 120fps... that'd be sweet.
lonewolf01Jul 10, 2010
As long as I get my 60, I don't care how high you go. :)
bigdoglj52Jul 10, 2010
Uhm, movies don't run at 60fps. Eye sees the blurs and puts them together since they're real unlike in video games or some s**t like that.
brendanjbJul 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
lonewolf01Jul 10, 2010
You know there is game footage on Youtube, right? Frag videos look so much better natively at 60fps than at the 30 Youtube scales them down to.
thediggpiggJul 10, 2010
@bigdog obviously you've never heard of game play videos.. I noticed the drop right away when uploading frets on fire videos in HD to youtube. Also more on topic having a 2560x1440 screen means I can finally film full sized game play videos :). This is a wonderful change. I know there a ton of videos out there uploaded already that would be able to make use of the higher resolution option.
lonewolf01Jul 10, 2010
"Full-sized" is rather subjective. Full-size for me is only 1080...
tiduJul 10, 2010
Movies and TV are have such a low fps because our minds are convinced that's what it should be. Ever watch a sitcom (seinfeld comes to mind for me) and in the sitcom they show camera footage on a tv or something, and it's MUCH smoother (or you at least notice something is different)?
jake1337Jul 10, 2010
@bigdoglj52
Buried for stupidity.
lonewolf01Jul 10, 2010
There's a difference between misinformation/misconception and stupidity. If he learns from this, then he's not stupid.
thatspsychoticJul 26, 2010
Higher resolution requires higher bitrate anyways. Did you not notice a significant increase in image quality between the 1080p mode and original? I did.
thefiendsterJul 10, 2010
f**k the resolution! Increase the bitrate.
solidfreezJul 10, 2010
So, the typo must be in the resolution listed next to the 4096p - must really be 4096x3072, rather than the listed 1096x3072.
terschJul 10, 2010
I'm confused. 1096x3072? Shouldn't 4096p be 4096 x 3072 (commonly referred to as 4K)?
myztryJul 10, 2010
Maybe it's $1000 (4096 decimal) + $96 overscan.
myztryJul 10, 2010
I felt like I was working out C64 raster interrupt values or Amiga copperlists but that's something that going to go over the head of the script kiddy generation.
jeffdJul 10, 2010
I think the poster made a type and hit 1 instead of 4.
timmmmJul 10, 2010
It's 4096x3072, commonly called '4K' which refers to the horizontal resolution (4 * 1024), or I suppose you could call it 3072p.
'4096p' definitely *is* a typo.
wayfarer12Jul 10, 2010
My computer asplodeded.
thecabdriverJul 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
james1877Jul 10, 2010
It doesn't run on my laptop :(
Time for a new one :D
jclem1030Jul 10, 2010
Not really working too well for me. Really stuttery. I don't even think 4k monitors exist for the mainstream yet, do they?
junk11Jul 10, 2010
They can't even get 1080p right!
totalhalibutJul 10, 2010
Right? There aren't any streaming providers that do it better yet, right is very much relative.
zelf24Jul 14, 2010
Wait a second. You're saying that YouTube is becoming the next Facebook?
doshindudeJul 10, 2010
4096p?
Um, yeah that is a typo.
The correct term is 3072.
eluusiveJul 10, 2010
It's not even that. Notice the small number is 1096, and the aspect ratio is not 16:9. The description of this article is all foobar.
dabekJul 10, 2010
Not to sound like a dick, but it's spelled FUBAR, for "f**ked up beyond repair." And before you ask, yes, I know that from video games. And yes, I hate myself.
thecheesemonkeyJul 10, 2010
Not to sound like a dick, but isn't it spelled FUBAR for "f**ked up beyond all recognition"
tnoyJul 10, 2010
No. The correct term is '4k'.
Also, the video isn't even 4096x3072, it is 4096x2304.
kanockJul 10, 2010
So... "4096p (1096×3072)", which is a typo supposed to mean 4096x3072, which if it was a real format would be 3072p. (5460x3072).
4K cinema is 4096x2160
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/UHDV.svg/1000px-UHDV.svg.png
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
"if it were a real format..."
Digg me down, but I'm so sick of this grammar mistake.
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
Dugg. The subjunctive is dying and only we can save it!
quambJul 10, 2010
And this is why your sh*t hot computer from a year or so ago is already out of date.
sux4buxJul 10, 2010
Their 720p/1080p is still crap. Really compressed and glitchy. Little premature considering monitors and bandwidth can't handle those resolutions yet.
dstzJul 10, 2010
"(...) bandwidth can't handle those resolutions yet."
Maybe they're thinking of people who don't live in the US!
v0rtJul 10, 2010
What kind of old ass 12" CRT monitor are you using that isn't atleast 768? Netbooks and cell phones screens don't count.
tiduJul 10, 2010
"Little premature considering monitors and bandwidth can't handle those resolutions yet. "
Surprisingly this video loaded very quickly for me. It wouldn't when millions of people are accessing it but... I sometimes get slow downloads from youtube on even s**tty quality video (FiOS here)
sirbetaJul 10, 2010
Now if only it were possible to record longer than 10 minutes for even the lower quality resolutions.
iamacyborgJul 10, 2010
You could cut up a 6 hours video @ 480p into about 36 10 minute clips, and then tile them across the screen in a 6x6 grid and play them simultaneously.
Then the person watching the video can replay it 36 times, each time watching a different tile.
There, fixed it.
dontthinksoJul 10, 2010
An elegant solution.
kotooniJul 10, 2010
Download link for the video?
hipmanJul 10, 2010
You don't know how download a youtube video?.
rydawg09Jul 10, 2010
No...
drt23Jul 10, 2010
If they can barely stream 720p on a busy night, how can they expect to stream 4096p smoothly? -_-
hipmanJul 10, 2010
Who's "they"?.Your ISP?.
mysql101Jul 10, 2010
They = youtube. The google caching system sucks balls. I have 30/20 fios connection and I get buffering. In the office, we have >T3 speeds and it also buffers.
sabinJul 10, 2010
I have a 10mbit cable connection and have never encountered this "buffering" you speak of....even when I was only a 7mbit.
mysql101Jul 10, 2010
Sabin, it's based on your geographical region. The google smart cache system routes you to what is supposed to be a fast link for download. Instead we get dead ends. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones.
There are a lot of threads similar to this one where many users report this issue:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22367603-northeast-Youtube-HQ-Video-Slow-buffering
Closed AccountJul 10, 2010
I have 100Mb xdsl here in Korea, and it still loads slow as balls
kjcdudeJul 10, 2010
They deliver OVER 12,000 views per SECOND.
I would say they're doing just fine. I've had to buffer a few times at home and work, but if I select a different quality, even a higher one it will move you to a different server and the video loads fine.
kjcdudeJul 10, 2010
My bad, youtube delivers over 23,000 views per second
http://www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet
crazyjoe123Jul 10, 2010
I can vouch for the slow Youtube speeds. I have a 1gbps connection and I still get buffering, and yet some (like this one) will load almost instantly.
My guess is that they have a special setup for sponsored (featured?) videos.
target91Jul 10, 2010
So how much bandwidth does this video take up?
botaxeroJul 10, 2010
I was averaging 1 MB/sec and hitting 1.7 when it was buffering.
openingsoundJul 10, 2010
a horse of course
angelbunnyJul 10, 2010
not enough. the video is compressed to s**t.
ptoomeyJul 24, 2010
All of it.
calcprogrammer1Jul 10, 2010
The only reasonable setup at this point for super high definition would be multi-monitor setups. For instance, 6xxx by 1080 for a 1920x1080 x3 setup. Eyefinity does this setup quite well but videos aren't recorded in ultra widescreen. You would need to stack monitors on top in a 3x2 or 2x2 configuration for this resolution to even make sense.
ripple123Jul 10, 2010
or a high dpi monitor. or a projection screen.
macaw2000Jul 10, 2010
All they need to do now is switch from Flash to HTML5 or Silverlight and it will look nice.
Flash video is *horrible* at high resolution. By *horrible* I mean *HORRIBLE*. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
evil_doerJul 10, 2010
"flash" isnt a codec, neither is html5. both can and do use the same codecs.
kantenJul 10, 2010
Youtube has been on HTML5 since January.
digitalpencilJul 10, 2010
wtf are you talking about? FLV is a wrapper, the codec is either Spark, VP6 or H.264..
it alarms me the number of people who chat complete s**t about subjects they have no understanding of, just to take a swing at a technology they've decided they don't like because a portion of bloggers got pissed off with rich media ads and completely misunderstand what H5 is, does, and will offer in the future.
i mean Silverlight FFS?!
altanarJul 10, 2010
It alarms me the number of people who dismiss Sliverlight simply because Microsoft made it.
scottussJul 10, 2010
Altanar: You --do-- realise why Silverlight is a bad idea for stuff like video, right? Not because of an half-assed argument such as "Microsoft made it and so it's teh evils" but because "Microsoft made it and therefore we should be cautious of using it instead of open format RIA platforms based purely on a history of the embrace, extend extinguish mentality that MS have."
phandrewJul 10, 2010
My netbook started a little bonfire just pressing the play button. :(
the2dquartetJul 10, 2010
Coming soon to an Apple store near you:
42" Retina Cinema Display
3072p for only $4995!
On a more serious note, this plays back at about 1 frame per 5 seconds on the Atom N450-powered netbook I'm using right now, with it's not-so-expansive 10", 1024x600 display. I may have to try this out on my laptop with a half-decent graphics card but then again the screen on that only goes up to 720p.
Damn you YouTube for being ahead of the times!
elendrystJul 22, 2010
I'm using the flash version and it doesn't go up to 4096.
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/5488/screenshot20100722at607.png
the2dquartetJul 23, 2010
It's the 'Original' setting in this case. It doesn't show the resolution on the pop-up list.
If it did it would say 3072p since that's the vertical resolution of the video. 1920x1080 and 1280x720 are listed as 1080p and 720p not 1920p and 1280p for the same reason.
vivisimonviJul 10, 2010
buffering
vuke69Jul 10, 2010
See, RealPlayer was just ahead of their time.
tnoyJul 10, 2010
http://www.doheth.co.uk/funny/signs/Real_Buffering
ripple123Jul 10, 2010
it begs the question, where the hell are all the high dpi lcd monitors? why should the iphone be the only one to get the print quality screen?
lordvanceJul 10, 2010
Where's the demand?
You won't see high DPI monitors for PC's until you see an operating system with true resolution-independent scaling. For now the "size" of things physically is (for the most part, without breaking a ton of s**t) tied to the DPI of the monitor displaying the content. Things appear significantly larger on a 26 inch 1680x1050 monitor than they do on a 19 inch 1680x1050 monitor. The entirety of internet is built around current average DPI.
Sell a monitor with twice the DPI of an average consumer monitor and you're just going to get a bunch of pissed off consumers who can't read the text on Digg.com.
It's much easier on a cell device where they can completely recraft the OS around the higher DPI display.
altanarJul 10, 2010
That's not the main reason. CRTs have had incredible dot pitches for a while now, allowing people to set their resolutions at insanely high settings for the physical size of the screen.
No, the real reason has more to do with the nature of LCDs. The problem is the native resolution of a monitor. There was actually a value to having a higher dot pitch in CRTs because they don't have forced native resolutions. People who wanted a sensible item size could keep their resolution lower, while people who wanted to set their resolution to 1920x1200 on a 17" in screen could do so.
Plus, the fact that there is the 1080p standard makes manufacturers want to make their monitors looks best at that standard, so they make it the native resolution.
tnoyJul 10, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
Refresh rate was crap, though. The problem is with display connection technology. A 3200x2400 (QUXGA) display running at 24-bit color would require a connection of more than 11Gb/s. Dual-link DVI maxes out at 7.96Gb/s. A WQUXGA display (3840x2400) at 24-bit color and 60Hz would need all four channels in a DisplayPort connection and be impossible to do with a single Dual-Link DVI or HDMI connector.
Even DisplayPort can't do a WQUXGA at 120Hz for 3D games.
A large reason we have not seen super-high PPI screens is due to connector technology. There are some smaller displays on the market that have high pixel densities. Its not hard to find a laptop these days with a 150ppi display. A 15.4" with a 1920x1200 screen is about 147ppi. A Sony VAIO Z is available with a 168ppi screen by comparison, a typical 24" 19:10 widescreen monitor has a resolution of 1920x1200 which is about 95ppi.
morphinapgJul 10, 2010
I tried it. My machine could play it (at a reduced frame rate) but the resolution didn't even look as sharp as standard 1080p video. The bitrate must be horrible. According to my program's algorithm, 4k @ 24fps using h264 would need a minimum of 22 mbps. It looks like the video was averaging 3-6 mbps. That's horrible for 4k.
For comparison, 720p should be a minimum of 3 mbps, and 1080p should be a minimum of 6 mbps.
Btw, my program is ASXGui in case you want a free simple way to encode any video your pc can play to mp4, mkv or Blu-ray files using x264. It can be as simple as simply dragging your video into the program and clicking encode, or as advanced as you need it to be. Although it's slightly outdated, as the last time I updated it was Christmas, but it still works great and I use it everyday.
theghoulJul 10, 2010
Holy s**t that was a lot of detail. That old guys gonna get cancer.
rajun50Jul 10, 2010
Did you notice the girl's hand wasn't dirty when she touched her hair (but was in the next shot) or the mosquito that landed on her forehead right as the video was about to end?
benroyJul 10, 2010
Well here I was thinking that YouTube videos buffered slow as s**t *now*....
theabsinthehareJul 10, 2010
For all the people making human eye jokes, I did the math for this once.
The resolution needed to match the human eye is about 10600 x 7000.
Yes, I am terribly fun at parties.
sabinJul 10, 2010
Eyes don't work like that you know.
themusicalduckJul 10, 2010
I'm not a biologist, but if I remember right doesn't the eye have 'rods' and 'cones' that detect light. So theoretically, the number of rods and cones determines in how much detail a person can see?
jeffdJul 10, 2010
Your math was wrong according to what I've read. 10600x7000 is 74.2 MP, the eye is closer to 576 MP if you really wanted to put a number on it. (Although what I read was taking into account that we have 2 eyes, so I guess I should say the resolution of human vision is about 576MP).
theabsinthehareJul 10, 2010
The 576 Megapixels you are referring to is taking into account the size of "the image" the eyes take in. When we see, our eyes are actually very quickly scanning our entire field of view and all of these scans result in the entire image we see, which is very acutely detailed at the center of our field of view, and far less detailed at the edges. The 10600x7000 I mentioned is the resolution necessary to match the peak of detail the eyes can discern at the center of our field of view.
suicidemouseJul 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
railzJul 10, 2010
Depends on your distance to the plane in question
theabsinthehareJul 10, 2010
Yes, this was based on a distance of 20 inches.
sputsJul 24, 2010
We're watching our screens, why would we be watching planes?
batonryeJul 10, 2010
You could measure resolution of the eyes in Pixels/Arc-Minute. Even still, that number would only apply to the center of your vision. Photo receptors are *much* more dense in the center of the retina than at the outer edges...
formerbabbyJul 10, 2010
Its cool but it would be nice if Flash used the GPU as well as the CPU.
fl0wJul 10, 2010
Yawn. Ignorance is bliss!
w00tableJul 10, 2010
It's cool how Flash does use GPU acceleration.
tnoyJul 10, 2010
Only if you're using Windows. Adobe doesn't want to support Linux, and Apple will not expose the parts of the API Adobe needs to get it working with OS X.
scorch07Jul 10, 2010
Check the news much? Apple did open it up to Adobe. I have a "pre-release" of 10.1 (even though 10.1 is out now) that supports GPU acceleration in OS X. Works great too! Now they just need to stick it in an actual release.
phuzi0nJul 10, 2010
There's many of similar articles about this due to Youtube's press release. Youtube themselves are responsible for calling it 4096p and 4K even though it's really not either. 4096x3072 doesn't seem to have any unique abbreviation for it so just call it what it is (the precise dimensions).
You can find Youtube's blog post with better details here:
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/whats-bigger-than-1080p-4k-video-comes.html
jeffdJul 10, 2010
4096x3072 is considered Full Aperture 4K in terms of digital cinema resolutions.
phuzi0nJul 11, 2010
Wikipedia says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
Digital film standards Standard↓ Resolution↓ DAR↓ Pixels↓
Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752
ajtsinJul 10, 2010
@ phuszi0n
The term 4k is accurate. In the industry this has been a standard term for quite some time now and there are a handful of cameras out there that shoot Native 4K which works out to be 4096x3072.
There is no error in Youtube's statement.
phuzi0nJul 11, 2010
The 4K thing is more-so the industry's fault for calling all sorts of things 4K when they're anywhere near having a 4000 pixel width, but 4096p makes absolutely no sense at all. When using the progressive/interlaced abbreviations you say the vertical dimension not the horizontal one. ie. 3072p
kantenJul 10, 2010
And it still manages to look worse than Stage6.
peach3sJul 10, 2010
i miss stage6 :(
kingofmyworld01Jul 10, 2010
ditto :(
elithebest89Jul 10, 2010
Oh god dammit now you've made me sad!
crumbworksJul 10, 2010
lol @ using more than 50% of my 4 cores, and almost 400 MB of RAM. That's hilarious.
However, considering my monitor is 1920x1080 (and that's the max amongst all but the most ridiculous monitors), it's not really that practical.
myztryJul 10, 2010
Might need to try this at work on the 30Mbs cable connection. ADSL2 just isn't cutting it.
dawnwolfJul 10, 2010
On a 15" display you really cannot tell the difference for anything beyond 720p, unless you stick your eyes in the screen. And assuming you have 1920 x 1080 pixels in your screen in the first place, the 3072p will be down-sampled to 1080p before being displayed, so you will be losing CPU cycles for nothing. Like somebody else here said, we need more color depth (bits/pixel) and not more pixels.
roy5000x2Jul 10, 2010
My Macbook was playing it at <1 frame per second. I'm pretty sure the integrated graphics card melted. Oh yeah. Now it's on fire. Brb guys...
ruthlesspirateJul 10, 2010
Great. Dial-up load times here we come again...
jeezoflipJul 10, 2010
actually it loads quite fast on an average broadband line considering the bitrate is still bulls**t.
biohazard87Jul 10, 2010
The video bitrate is the limiting factor here, not the resolution.
noxatJul 10, 2010
What is the point of ridiculously high resolution if the video is still going to be nasty and blocky from the compression and low bit rate?
peestandingupJul 10, 2010
Downloaded the source video. Not as impressive as I thought it would be.
falserJul 10, 2010
My Rogers Canada internet bandwidth limit is 95GB per month.
I could use up my entire bandwidth in about an hour with this.
altanarJul 10, 2010
I'm sorry. :-( I used a third of your bandwidth limit the other day with one Steam sale.
unfatherJul 10, 2010
I used all of it, and during a Steam sale as well, and then probably 3x that in streaming pornography and we're only 10 days into the month. Sorry, Canadians.