What is Digg?183 Comments
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -22/+310Screw HD, let's just go WIDESCREEN first eh?
- KingBunny, on 12/01/2007, -5/+223...is it supposed to play at like 1 frame-per-second, even AFTER it's spent forever buffering?
..just sayin'. - DigitAl56K, on 12/01/2007, -3/+130It might look like http://www.stage6.com . Search the tags for "HD", "720", or "1080"
Just saying... - thr33m, on 12/01/2007, -3/+101Wow that took a long time to load up...
- MikeCerm, on 12/01/2007, -4/+71Yeah, Flash sucks. The video compression is horribly inefficient, and getting it to play smoothly is barely possible on a reasonably powerful. The crappy webcam quality of current YouTube videos hides some of the problems. When you have a decent quality source, the jerkiness become much more apparent.
Either Adobe needs to improve Flash, or YouTube should dump Flash in favor of something better. Unfortunately, there is nothing better. Silverlight is promising, particularly for video, but so far I haven't seen it implemented anywhere. Quicktime can stream, but Quicktime for Windows is so bad that it could be considered malware. - Forky, on 12/01/2007, -1/+61If you read the text it says "Above is an example of a precompressed 960x540 video (not even HD) at 6000kbit/s that's been snuck onto YouTube servers"
And the title says "What YouTubeHD Might Look Like".
How is this not clear enough? it clearly says that the video has been snuck into the youtube server and this is what it MIGHT look like - WonderBoy55, on 12/01/2007, -0/+55Creepy choice for a demo video, don't ya think?
- jus1haz2, on 12/01/2007, -1/+51"I have no idea how they're going to sustain the bandwidth costs, though."
Uhh... Its google, I think they can manage. - pussieLicker, on 12/01/2007, -2/+51Who cares about widescreen if it's still going to look like chet, quality first man!
- vtbarrera, on 02/03/2009, -1/+45The sooner YouTube uses divx the better. Stage6 can already stream 1080p and the load time for that is roughly the same time for this.
- CCB0x45, on 12/01/2007, -4/+47I dunno about half that sit is filmed on like cellphone cameras and crappy video cams or webcams...
- ikamos, on 12/01/2007, -9/+48Looks good...but does it come with a price? Any news on whether or not Google will make us sit through a ton of commercials to watch these bad boys?
- CushyL, on 12/01/2007, -1/+40Stage6 is amazing... and blazingly fast. It takes 3 seconds to buffer HD content, I love it.
- gurm, on 12/01/2007, -7/+41So you'd be happy if you got videos with a 160x90 resolution? That is widescreen after all.
- RobotKing, on 12/01/2007, -1/+33I liked the teeny bikini video more.
- jjb123, on 12/01/2007, -3/+34What about the Divx web player like Stage6 uses.
- domokunt, on 12/01/2007, -4/+31dont...want...to....see...teenagers...zits.....noooooo...
- avisotin, on 12/01/2007, -1/+25Are you kidding Their quality is shocking. Try and record footage from a game or something, for example, and load it onto Youtube. Then you'll see just how much the quality is bastardized.
- oojamaflip2006, on 12/01/2007, -0/+22So YouTube HD kills children? Thats great marketing.
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -1/+22i love stage6
- kris33, on 12/01/2007, -1/+19h.264 is MUCH better than WMP
- Icupnimpn2, on 12/01/2007, -1/+19The price is Chris Crocker close up and in HD
- Lingur, on 12/01/2007, -2/+19Is Flash not an additional plug-in?
- headzoo, on 12/01/2007, -0/+17The videos on Stage6 are much nicer than YouTube, and they have no problems with you downloading the videos. They even provide a button to instantly download them. The only thing Stage6 is missing, is a really big community.
- Dustmuffins, on 12/01/2007, -0/+16Worked fine on my supercomputer, I don't see the problem. Doesn't everyone have one?
- SRSco, on 12/01/2007, -1/+16I'd also like an apology for the misuse of the word "ironic". KTHXBAI.
- kmesp86, on 12/01/2007, -3/+16Maybe they will use some of those billions of dollars.
- patrickloggins, on 12/01/2007, -0/+13I think this is the best solution. however, they should limit it to 4:3 or 16:9; I don't wanna see videos that are a pixel long and 1000 tall.. because some ***** would do that.
- blackeagle613, on 12/01/2007, -2/+13stage 6 ftw
- GeckoSlayer, on 12/01/2007, -1/+12It's becasue this stupid article is incorrect. The youtube flash player they've got featured there, although featuring higher framerate and resolution, the flash player is still throttled at 315kbit/sec and the 'HD' video featured requires more than that.
- chugger1992, on 12/01/2007, -1/+11too bad Flash doesn't currently have Hardware Video Acceleration, yet. It just uses the CPU.
- TheWindBlows, on 12/01/2007, -10/+20google needs to ditch Flash if the plan to do High quality streams or work with adobe to make a new flash media plug-in totally separate from any other plug-in out there.
Either way flash is no good for high quality streaming. Eh flash is no good period " . " - manitoba98xp, on 12/01/2007, -2/+11You mean like when Adobe recently updated flash with H.264 support, which Youtube is already implementing for the iPhone and AppleTV?
- avisotin, on 12/01/2007, -0/+9If it is a bug, how do you abuse it? I'd love my vids to look like this.
- sgoogle, on 12/01/2007, -0/+9'Real' HD (720p) on YouTube - Doesn't sream very well, but download it and it works fine
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-23Opat5zDE - domokunt, on 12/01/2007, -1/+9If you follow through to the youtube page, this is a trick, its not a proper youtube feature ;)
- BenKenobi88, on 12/01/2007, -2/+10Uh, Stage6 anyone?
- MagicCake, on 12/01/2007, -0/+8I think it needs to be a lot better than it is, but the bitrate in this video was definitely overkill. 6 Mbps is about the same as a DVD. You could do with half that for this kind of thing.
- Bamborzled, on 12/01/2007, -0/+7They should ban Chris Crocker as a form of torture.
- JudgeMonkey, on 12/01/2007, -0/+7Looks good enough to me too. But heck, when I was a little Monkey, not even a Judge yet, I recall a day when I made a huge download commitment. Yes, on that day I was going to do it, I was going to actually download a HUGE 10 mb video.
Ok, maybe it's the proverbial, "When I was a kid, I walked 15 miles in the snow to school each day....." story, but you know, youtube just works, and it looks fine. Heaven forbid people don't agree. Digg them down until they are invisible. Only the people we agree with should be seen. - heinousjay, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6You don't really know anything about video, do you?
- suprxtragrav, on 12/09/2008, -0/+6AND stage6 lets you save the videos in divX format.
i've never really figured out how to play .flv files :s - darlyn, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6I think stage6 has been invaded by a horde of Diggers.
- inactive, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6HD Youtube. So we can see the guy's eyes actually *flinching* while yelling "DONT TASE ME BRO!"
- TheWindBlows, on 12/01/2007, -2/+8damn time travelers...
- Goldspink, on 12/01/2007, -2/+8Totally agree. It would save having to either letterbox (or worse, crop) widescreen clips we upload to avoid them being squashed.
- knuckles, on 12/01/2007, -0/+6Keep in mind that this test was done with an FLV wrapper which uses Sorenson encoding and Nelly Moser audio. The current Flash plugin now in beta supports H.264 streaming playback (with AAC audio) as well as HARDWARE acceleration (fullscreen mode only). The test video in that YouTube sample is likely 20X larger than its H.264 equivalent, so I suspect that YouTube is just waiting for Adobe to wrap up their public beta (you can get the beta at labs.adobe.com).
That said, discussing the performance of the video above (encoded at 6000k/bits is ridiculously high) is kind of moot.
More information here (I'm linking to a google cached because the actual site is down):
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:gDULsOktgx0J:w ... - vinecrawler, on 12/01/2007, -1/+7if anybody says "just sayin' " one more time, I'm going to snap.
Just sayin' - accessviolation, on 12/01/2007, -0/+5first of all, 1080p is nomenclature for HDTVs, not computer monitors. Second of all, 1080p = 1920x1080, which is a widescreen resolution, and also bigger than most people's monitors are capable of displaying. On top of that, the size would be ***** massive. Despite what you may think, Google cannot magically wide your intertubes to stream all that data through.
- digitalpencil, on 12/01/2007, -3/+8Widescreen really isn't an issue, it would be a simple operation to implement a control to switch the ratio of the flv without having to worry about anything like re-encoding & this way, you preserve the default ratio of the rest of youtube's content, the majority of which, isn't widescreen.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is