"Lupe" a 4K short on YouTube!

[Mark Collins]

Sure, but I am merely pointing out that YouTube can finally be used for "decent" HD, if you cheat it.



Get it loading and hit pause, then hit play once it is all there.

Did that, my computer simply can't play it back in realtime in 4K

 

[chrislancaster]

Did that, my computer simply can't play it back in realtime in 4K

same here after letting load it still drop 2/3 frames ..imac tho so what can i expect

 

[Matthias Hutter]

@Mark Collins: You need to have hardware acceleration, and something like a HD300 Card. Or some serious processor, like an Core i7.

 

[Tom.Wong]

Watched it fully at least, pretty cool but still really noticeable compression artifacts. Great step in this direction though, no when youtube can get some better encoding specs and give us something at least on par with apple trailers, than it's gonna be true awesome. MORE BANDWIDTH!

 

[Steve White]

I only have 1920 pixel wide screens, but even downsampling from 4K I can see the compression artifacts in the youtube playback. I think they'd be better off spending the bandwidth on reducing compression.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Interestingly, last night when trying to watcht the 4K flavor of this, the stream wasn't being delivered fast enough.... my 15Mbps FIOS connection was only seeing ~1.5Mpbs of utilization.

This morning, it zips right thru. I think there may have been some upstream chokepoints for this stream size within Youtube's infrastructure.

Very nicely done, Evin!

-sc

 

[Matthias Hutter]

Sure, but I am merely pointing out that YouTube can finally be used for "decent" HD, if you cheat it. .

Sadly, thats not the case. A that low bitrate causes the codec to "break up", resulting in a way worse picture quality than 1080p. Attached are 2 examples, with a 1:1 crop superimposed.
Anyway, sorry for the thread highjack.
EDIT: The 1:1 crop isn't scaled.

 

[Mark Collins]

@Mark Collins: You need to have hardware acceleration, and something like a HD300 Card. Or some serious processor, like an Core i7.

Which I lack. I'm on an 2008 Macbook Pro, so, can't really upgrade anything.

 

[Felix C]

Yep, I agree. I'm curious about how this will evolve.

I remember not too long ago 160x160 was considered state of the art. Nice work Evin.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Hi Evin,

BTW - I didn't mean for my pissy attitude regarding the state of distribution for indies to diminish your great work. My apologies. It must be amazing getting to work on such an important project with such a huge company.

Congrats.

 

[Evin Grant]

Thanks Chris, and you're right getting indies financed sucks, I shot a 3/4 Mil. indie feature last Nov. and it was a brutal 13 day shooting schedule. In the end though having more outlets allows for those with the talent to get noticed by more people who have means, even if the game has changed.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Evin, I did as you suggested for a 30" display and it didn't look good as much as it should look great, in theory. Looked way too much mosaic-like at "original" and "full screen."

Any suggestions?

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Sadly, thats not the case. A that low bitrate causes the codec to "break up", resulting in a way worse picture quality than 1080p. Attached are 2 examples, with a 1:1 crop superimposed.
Anyway, sorry for the thread highjack.
EDIT: The 1:1 crop isn't scaled.

Guess I should look a bit more closely. It seemed way sharper and cleaner on first look. But was that 1:1 at 4k?

Just to be clear, I am talking about the 4k scaled down to 1080 by your video card.

 

[Brian Shephard]

It chokes on my MacBook Pro in 4k, but it even looks awesome in 1080p. Very, very nice work. Congrats!

 

[Kalani Prince]

beautiful, YouTube is rockin it !!!

 

[Kalani Prince]

in re-watching it at 1080p it looks a lot better.. although it played fine on my 25" Asus i7 box..

 

[Evin Grant]

Evin, I did as you suggested for a 30" display and it didn't look good as much as it should look great, in theory. Looked way too much mosaic-like at "original" and "full screen."

Any suggestions?

A 30" display is still only 2500 or so pixels across so there will still be scaling, which I think is responsible for a lot of the artifacts. Also Youtube's compression seems to be very dependent on your connection, machine and video card specs. I've been able to watch it in 4K only by spreading it across two monitors and there is definitely visible compression, but there really is 4K (3.2K Red actual) resolution there.

Of course the real point of anything on Youtube is accessibility, with current technology there really is no streaming video over 720P that looks "Great", but we're getting there and this is a big step forward for accessibility and adoption of 4K.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

Guess I should look a bit more closely. It seemed way sharper and cleaner on first look.

Probably because not everything is bad. If you look at the beginning of the Surf NYC Video, you can see that the clouds beginn to "clean up" after 3-5 seconds. Or any other non-bokeh static background for that matter.

But things get really ugly if there is movement. For example look at the image attached (crop from 4k to 1080). It looks as if the roses are a magic wand, beause the color is bleeding into the background. Theses artifacts can especially been seen in the quick parts from Evins upload. The higher the youtube resolution, the more underrated the codec gets. If youtube 720p had the current 4k bitrate (~480p DVD), 1080p under double that and 4k three times that of 1080p, macroblocking and codec brakeup could be largely avoided. I hope thats just a matter of time.

But was that 1:1 at 4k?

It is no secret that you can almost every non encryptet video stream outside the web - sometimes even download the file directly. If I disable the scaler, I can play a part of the 4k frame back in 1:1.
/EDIT: Or use a good scaler, and see that youtubes scaler isn't really the core problem.