What is Digg?159 Comments
- cryan28, on 11/13/2009, -3/+176Free service releases higher quality videos: COMPLAIN.
- DeskFlyer, on 11/13/2009, -3/+165Sorry to nitpick on the description, but the 'p' in 1080p stands for progressive, not pixel.
- BESTenemy, on 11/13/2009, -1/+144“For our content creators, we want it to look as good or better than the source’s quality."
Better than the source quality? Someone at Google has been watching way too much CSI. - nmffffd9, on 11/13/2009, -3/+144They don't even have proper bitrate 720P yet.. What they really need to do in order to compete with other sites is update their layout, player, and give an option to turn background black.
- likwidfuzion, on 11/13/2009, -0/+89And automatically ban all the idiotic comments.
- umphreakin, on 11/13/2009, -1/+89Wow, that's [buffering...buffering...buffering] great [buffering...buffering...buffering]...news...[freeze, refresh page]
- lunchbox643, on 11/13/2009, -4/+75ive been waiting so long for 1080p softcore almost-porn on youtube
- doshindude, on 11/13/2009, -8/+66*****. Their current excuse for "HD" isn't even close to HD. Neither will this "1080p" that they are introducing.
- lambda, on 11/13/2009, -1/+58Enhance.
- RIPtechtv, on 11/13/2009, -2/+55My Youtube vidoes can load even slower then they already do. YAY.
- papajohn565656, on 11/13/2009, -3/+53With Flash? This is going to be horrible, and CPU usage is going to be out of control. Can we replace the abomination that is Flash yet?
- somepuertorican, on 11/13/2009, -3/+47Let me know when Youtube handles its original resolution correctly..
- seandfeeney, on 11/13/2009, -13/+55too bad there isn't anything worth watching on youtube in 1080p
- baccart, on 11/13/2009, -0/+35That is true, youtube suddenly started buffering since the last couple of months on Everything, im not sure what is going on. This is regardless of browser or PC. I have 7mb connection. Hulu streams without lagging.
- Demistate, on 11/13/2009, -2/+36Here's a 1080P sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iiwWqoqgI4&fmt ...
They do a 3.5Mbps stream for 1080P. Its hardly enough to hold up a full 1080picture without getting tons of macro-blocks.
See this thread if you're more interested in the tech:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1343581 - eqisow, on 11/13/2009, -1/+33With HTML5 and Theora/H.264, I think.
- TheUngod, on 11/13/2009, -0/+30Yeah, I'd prefer they remove their time limit for videos than upgrade the quality to unnecessary levels.
- trashymac, on 11/13/2009, -0/+30They need to fix how slowly their damned videos download now, first.
- kylescousin, on 11/13/2009, -4/+34Google seems to have an abundance of bandwidth available.
Youtube is already making major losses, this will make it even more costly. Guess they have their reasons. - m0og0o, on 11/13/2009, -8/+34with what. quicktime? lollerblades
- Stoyanov, on 11/13/2009, -1/+27Oh, right. 1080p video at 3000kbps. Nice.
- shifty2, on 11/13/2009, -1/+27most modern CPU's chug away at 50~70% CPU usage on what youtube considers "HD" quality in full screen. adding a new "1080p" quality is a slap in the face IMO. Especially since Adobe has been dragging their feet on GPU assisted offloading for how long now?
All they have done with HD and 1080p is upped the compression rate, encoding video quality and resolution.
They should have called it "HQ" for Higher Quality and left it that.
The mis-use of terms and mis-information makes me feel like Youtube is being run by the same people who post comments on there. - OnAsideNote, on 11/14/2009, -0/+24Stage6 :(
- bjgodby090978, on 11/13/2009, -6/+27Also technically wrong. The 1080 is lines of resolution. Yeah Yeah, I know....pixels make up lines of resolution.
- FritoPendejo, on 11/13/2009, -0/+20Everything is an outrage and makes me want to cry.
- Stoyanov, on 11/13/2009, -0/+20Phew. I thought it was my wi-fi router. Something is really wrong with YouTube.
- CaviMike, on 11/13/2009, -0/+18Flash is so resource intensive, I wish we could just go back to the .avi and .mpg days.
- Dougman82, on 11/13/2009, -0/+17I would rather watch higher-quality but lower-resolution videos than 1080p video that's overly compressed.
- AndrewDB, on 11/13/2009, -0/+16Youporn, keezvideos, redtube
.. you won't last more than 30 seconds .. :p - Princeamor, on 11/13/2009, -0/+15Fix your bandwidth issues first...
- TylerDuhrdan, on 11/14/2009, -0/+15oh man i miss Stage6 sooo bad.
- Steeple, on 11/13/2009, -0/+15it's to max out your cpu so you can't screen record drm'd stuff at a decent framerate
- robdiggity, on 11/13/2009, -0/+14buried because you can't even get a rick roll right.
- papajohn565656, on 11/13/2009, -3/+17for HD they sure do. Vimeo is much better for HD
- ausdigger, on 11/13/2009, -1/+14no, it does not. It might be specced (I'm not sure thats the case even), but clearly doesnt work.
Try youtube on an atom with a GPU (nvidia ion platform)
hardware accel my arse. - TallestSkil, on 11/14/2009, -0/+13Apple, at least with movie trailers.
- macslut, on 11/14/2009, -0/+13Sigh...
QuickTime is a Player (and plug-in), a container, and a codec (compression=none actually uses QuickTime compression).
Flash is a player (and plug-in) and a container. The Flash player (and plug-in) used to be restricted to FLV as a container, which included VP6 and Sorenson as the most commonly used codecs. Now, the Flash player (and plug-in) can play MPEG-4 files either with the default MPEG-4 compression or with H.264.
That being said, the quicker we move to HTML5 and MPEG-4 with H.264, the better...if not MPEG-4 then some other container that is ideally GPU accelerated and open. - eqisow, on 11/13/2009, -0/+13Yeah... a core i7 might be able to handle this... maybe.
- DeathToaster, on 11/13/2009, -3/+16Flash is also a "player" and not a format (or more correctly, a codec).
- farfle10, on 11/13/2009, -1/+14No, see he said they don't have competition
- trixnfx, on 11/13/2009, -0/+13Man no *****. I thought I was having computer problems or something. What the hell is going on?
- Intertron, on 11/13/2009, -1/+13exactly
- miaow, on 11/13/2009, -0/+11it also sometimes 'sticks' now
- drmangrum, on 11/13/2009, -0/+11yeah.....if they do it right it will take 2 hours to download a 30 second clip.
- keyo, on 11/14/2009, -0/+11CSI enhance...http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/640/csi21.jpg
- Stingwolf, on 11/13/2009, -0/+11Also, from wikipedia:
"The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels. This creates a frame resolution of 1920×1080, or 2,073,600 pixels in total." - eadnams, on 11/13/2009, -0/+10well, the samples are indeed 1080p, but the data rate is hella-low. Not sure if its flv, mpeg-4 or h.264 tho. That'll make a difference in quality with the same data rates.
- skate3214, on 11/13/2009, -0/+10Haha that actually wouldn't surprise me if they did something like that.
- Zippo, on 11/14/2009, -0/+10And roll out HTML5 video fully, even as an optional alternative. I know it's in the works.
- LoneWolf01, on 11/14/2009, -0/+9When you encase it in a Flash player, it becomes twice as demanding.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 