Youtube now supports 60fps

[madvanced]

4K is already supported but not many people upload 4k videos.

I know MysteryGuitarMan does at least.

[5T4R]

Looking forward to when they support 4K resolution and 120 HZ. That's how true men roll.

 

But yeah, this is good. Higher hz the happier I am haha.

 

4K resolution for YouTube, I tried uploading once, before uploading it takes a whole ____ day for me to render the video. After converting, I tried uploading to YouTube, it took me so ____ long that I gave up. I smashed my computer and threw them away.

 

MCQ Question, fill in the missing words on the space ____ provided. 

[crunchytaco]

Ad long as we have it as an option, Im fine with it. However i wouldnt want the majority of videos in 120hz. The smoothness is annoying.

And the answer to my gif: i have no clue.

[Kendjin]

Slightly off topic, but SVP is a program that let's you play videos at 60 in media player classic.

[madvanced]

Ad long as we have it as an option, Im fine with it. However i wouldnt want the majority of videos in 120hz. The smoothness is annoying.

And the answer to my gif: i have no clue.

For vlogs and more cinematic I wouldn't want it either, however for game streams and gameplay footage the 120/144 hz would be a great option.

[Kendjin]

Seems like if it's uploaded as 60. 60 is only option

[Nayleen]

Dunno what people are talking about when they mention Hz. That's got nothing to do with Youtube but your monitors, you can already enjoy everything in glorious 120/144Hz if you have a monitor capable of displaying it and 60FPS videos to make full use of it.

 

Nothing for the weak though, as someone who's not epileptic in the slightest, the 60FPS version of "Into the Labyrinth" made me really nauseous, in a good and bizarre way.

[crunchytaco]

I think the problem is we are confusing HZ with FPS. I solved the answer with google though. 

I don't know how to check my LCD HZ with the new windows these days. 

[Snowtsuku]

I thought 24 fps has a cinematic effect or something?

[crunchytaco]

I think it just makes it choppy. 

[madvanced]

Dunno what people are talking about when they mention Hz. That's got nothing to do with Youtube but your monitors, you can already enjoy everything in glorious 120/144Hz if you have a monitor capable of displaying it and 60FPS videos to make full use of it.

 

Nothing for the weak though, as someone who's not epileptic in the slightest, the 60FPS version of "Into the Labyrinth" made me really nauseous, in a good and bizarre way.

Hz is just a measure that defines cycles per second so saying 144hz and 144 fps is a bit different in theory but not that different in practice. Also you will only take the full advantage of the 144hz output of your panel(if it is capable of that) if the source(video file) also displays it in 144 fps, else seeing a video file in 60 fps in a 60 hz panel vs a 144 hz panel will be the same, since it will only perform as good as the weakest link in the chain, in this case the source(video file).

[crunchytaco]

But 120HZ can only display up to 60 FPS before tearing. 120HZ doesn't equal 120 FPS.

[madvanced]

But 120HZ can only display up to 60 FPS before tearing. 120HZ doesn't equal 120 FPS.

Actually in this case it does, in a 120hz panel tearing only occurs if the frame rate goes above 120 fps.

 

Why you might ask? Well because a refresh rate of 120hz means that the panel will search for a new frame to output 120 times in 1 second, tearing occurs when in the middle of a refresh the GPU outputs more than 1 frame, meaning that you are seeing more than 1 frame in a single refresh, this can only happen if the frame rate output exceeds the refresh rate of a monitor.

 

In conclusion a 120hz panel can display at most 120 fps, a 60hz panel can display at most 60 fps, so on and so fort.

[arakura]

Do you know why that is, taco? I don't know much about this, and personally I'm fine with thirty. But when talking about monitors, the hz is referred to as the refresh rate, I believe. Why would it not be able to show a different image every refresh? It can redraw images at its refresh rate, and every frame is a new image.

Welp ninja'd

[madvanced]

Do you know why that is, taco? I don't know much about this, and personally I'm fine with thirty. But when talking about monitors, the hz is referred to as the refresh rate, I believe. Why would it not be able to show a different image every refresh? It can redraw images at its refresh rate, and every frame is a new image.

Welp ninja'd

My knowledge of physics as enabled me to ninja you Ara .

[arakura]

No! It was my bad internet! NOOOOoooooo

[Kelebek1]

EDIT: I actually take a lot of this back, it depends how you save the video. A 60fps version is available, but it's not default, at least for me, and no download site will get it by default.

 

That video is a bad example though, the only way you'll see any sort of real difference is in higher, faster motion content. This raises big problems though. The filesize will be doubled, thus every video on YouTube all of a sudden gets 2x larger. That's a hugely greater strain on internet bandwidth, for both individuals and overall for the whole country/world. Can only stream YouTube in 720p currently? Well too bad, now you'll have to cut down to 480p or lower. Could only watch 480p before? Enjoy your new 240p.

 

For example, here are the qualities available for that video:

 

 

Look at the size differences for the 60fps 720p versions and the 30fps 720p versions. 25/34MB vs 51/44MB. The 34/44MB is pretty close there, that's not too bad. But consider the fact that this video is only 2:11 long, these differences will really be a huge increase on 30 min, hour long+ videos, and I still contend that nearly all videos don't need it at all. So you could need *double* the net speed at worst case (25/51MB difference there) to stream at the same quality. A higher resolution matters way more than the FPS in nearly all videos in my opinion.

 

Mmm. I'm really split on whether this is a good or bad thing. This will up strain on YouTube/Google's servers, as well as your local network.We all know how bad the net is at prime times, bad latency, throttling (throttling will make this difference even worse) etc etc.

[madvanced]

Well now this is very funny, placebo effect in full in action for you guys right here. The fact that both 30fps and 60fps videos look absolutely identical should have been your first clue that it's not 60fps, but this just seems to be a bunch of proof that you don't need 30fps video because you can't tell the difference.

 

This "60 fps" video is in fact only 30 fps:

 

 

Just like all the people who keep FLAC audio files because they think they can hear a difference between FLAC and 320Kbps mp3, and they can't.

 

That video is a bad example anyway, the only way you'll see a real difference is in higher, faster motion content.

 

On a real 60 fps video you will notice a difference vs 30 fps, in that there is no question.

 

On the audio files point, on a 30€ pair of ear buds/headphones of course you can't hear the difference between a FLAC or a 320kbps MP3, when you start to get into higher quality stuff however it is noticeable especially in SPL(or lack there of) between these 2 types of file.

[crunchytaco]

It's not placebo. I saw it. It's real!

 

Anyway, isn't there also ways to emulate higher motion rate by duplicating frames? I'm no expert in this either (yet). I have just held onto what information I've read that made the most sense.

 

Here is a Yahoo Answer (this century's academic journal) about FPS relation with HZ. 

 

These answers are very close, but just a little off. 

60hz is 60 fields per second, and 2 fields makes one frame. 

60hz is 30 frames 
120hz is 60 frames 
etc. 

A few things to keep in mind. 

No video game, DVD, bluray player etc put out a single higher then 60hz. 
There for anything above 60hz is being faked by the TV. 
The time it takes to fake the extra hz adds a delay/lag. If you plan on playing games you can not use 120hz (most sets will let you use a game mode, but that turns the screen back to the normal 60hz). 

 

The last paragraph might be bull, since this was made three years ago. 

[Eclipsed]

 

Well now this is very funny, placebo effect in full in action for you guys right here. The fact that both 30fps and 60fps videos look absolutely identical should have been your first clue that it's not 60fps, but this just seems to be a bunch of proof that you don't need 30fps video because you can't tell the difference.

 

This "60 fps" video is in fact only 30 fps:

 

 

Just like all the people who keep FLAC audio files because they think they can hear a difference between FLAC and 320Kbps mp3, and they can't.

 

That video is a bad example anyway, the only way you'll see a real difference is in higher, faster motion content.

Eh, if that's the case then +1 for you, have a cookie.

But to say there isn't a perceivable difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is outright bull.

Try PC gaming in 30 fps vs 60 fps. If you can't tell the difference in fluidity, then I guess good for you. Cap your FPS at 30. Less strain on your video card.

And look up The Hobbit 48 FPS and see how horribly critiqued it was for being "too fluid" compared to the standard 24 fps for movies.

[madvanced]

It's not placebo. I saw it. It's real!

 

Anyway, isn't there also ways to emulate higher motion rate by duplicating frames? I'm no expert in this either (yet). I have just held onto what information I've read that made the most sense.

 

Here is a Yahoo Answer (this century's academic journal) about FPS relation with HZ. 

 

These answers are very close, but just a little off. 

60hz is 60 fields per second, and 2 fields makes one frame. 

60hz is 30 frames 

120hz is 60 frames 

etc. 

A few things to keep in mind. 

No video game, DVD, bluray player etc put out a single higher then 60hz. 

There for anything above 60hz is being faked by the TV. 

The time it takes to fake the extra hz adds a delay/lag. If you plan on playing games you can not use 120hz (most sets will let you use a game mode, but that turns the screen back to the normal 60hz). 

well that is a specific argument regarding TVs which have a different construction in terms of overall display against monitors.

 

So a tv usually doubles the frames of what it displays, this is because of consoles, since a lot of games are rendered at 30 fps, the TV is going to double the frames to make an artificial sense of smoothness.

 

On PC monitors however this doesn't happen, a 120Hz is capable of displaying up to 120 frames per second.

 

This difference in construction is what makes TVs have an input lag of 30-40 ms and most monitors have 1-3ms(TN panels) 5-8ms(IPS and some PLS panels).

[arakura]

EDIT: I actually take a lot of this back, it depends how you save the video. It is 60fps if downloaded correctly. Keepvid for some reason doesn't use 60fps links yet, but it is there at 30 so youtube does have both.

 

That video is a bad example though, the only way you'll see any sort of real difference is in higher, faster motion content. This raises big problems though. The filesize will be doubled, thus every video on YouTube all of a sudden gets 2x larger. That's a hugely greater strain on internet bandwidth, for both individuals and overall for the whole country/world. Can only stream YouTube in 720p currently? Well too bad, now you'll have to cut down to 480p or lower. Could only watch 480p before? Enjoy your new 240p.

[madvanced]

EDIT: I actually take a lot of this back, it depends how you save the video. It is 60fps if downloaded correctly. Keepvid for some reason doesn't use 60fps links yet, but it is there at 30 so youtube does have both.

 

That video is a bad example though, the only way you'll see any sort of real difference is in higher, faster motion content. This raises big problems though. The filesize will be doubled, thus every video on YouTube all of a sudden gets 2x larger. That's a hugely greater strain on internet bandwidth, for both individuals and overall for the whole country/world. Can only stream YouTube in 720p currently? Well too bad, now you'll have to cut down to 480p or lower. Could only watch 480p before? Enjoy your new 240p.

[Kelebek1]

Eh, if that's the case then +1 for you, have a cookie.

But to say there isn't a perceivable difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is outright bull.

Try PC gaming in 30 fps vs 60 fps. If you can't tell the difference in fluidity, then I guess good for you. Cap your FPS at 30. Less strain on your video card.

And look up The Hobbit 48 FPS and see how horribly critiqued it was for being "too fluid" compared to the standard 24 fps for movies.

 

 

I never said anything about non-video, obviously you can see and feel the difference when it's something you control. We're talking about video here. I saw The Hobbit and it looked entirely normal to me. You want to talk about the same sort of idiot critics that do this crap? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11184458/Pranksters-serve-McDonalds-to-food-critics-watch-what-happens.html - The type of critics who just hate on popular things. We can ignore "professional" critics' opinions. I also haven't heard the fps being a problem for any normal person who saw the film.

 

But that's part of the issue, all of our editing, post-production etc procedures are all created and based around that 24fps standard. The very reason a movie needs motion blur on almost every single frame is because the fps is so low, if you upped the fps then you'd need to vastly reduce or remove that motion blur because you've essentially "fixed" the problem motion blur fixed, by increasing the fps, so applying the fix to something already fixed would produce weird results. The Hobbit would only be strange because it's the only one, things would/will change if more films used it.

 

 

 

Actually it depends on how youtube compresses the videos, the files don't necessarily have to be 2x larger, so it is up to youtube's encoding. But since we know that youtube's encoding is usually shit when it does some kind of transition, we will have to wait and see what happens

 

That's true, but the only place you'll see a difference in 60fps vs 30fps is where the motion changes a lot and quickly, and that's exactly the type of video that can't be compressed very much (in comparison to have much/easily stuff like a person talking to a single camera, blog-type video), like random data can't be.

 

At the end of the day though, data sizes are increasing at a quicker pace than our internet speeds, and so something like this will just exacerbate that even more. Maybe that will force companies to get faster though, as more people complain about slow internet, who knows. As soon as Google Fibre gets to your area you don't need to worry about this any more anyway.

[Jibril]

Many people don't upload it in 4k because the user base that does use 4k panels is small, so it is more efficient to record in 4k and then downsample it to 1080p when rendering. I know that some youtubers do it this way when they do record in 4k.

What. Wouldn't that make the image quality so amazing they ended up coming out of the monitor?