+++ to secure your transactions use the Bitcoin Mixer Service +++

 

advertisement
July 9, 2010 3:06 PM PDT

YouTube now supports 4k-resolution videos

Thought 1080p video on YouTube was big? Think bigger.

YouTube on Friday announced that its player now supports 4k, a standard resolution for films that measures 4096x3072 pixels. As YouTube Engineer Ramesh Sarukkai explained in the announcement on YouTube's official blog, "4K is nearly four times the size of 1080p," and it dwarfs even Imax, which projects films in the slightly smaller 2k format, with its 2048?1080-pixel resolution.

Of course, the proof of 4k's merits is in the pudding, which is why YouTube has a special playlist of five films that can be played back in their original 4k resolution. As Sarukkai warns, viewing these properly requires considerable bandwidth speed, as well as the right gear.

Speaking of which, even with a fast connection, home users will need the proper equipment to enjoy 4k videos in their native resolution. This means a large display, or 4k-capable projector--neither of which can be had on the cheap. It's also worth mentioning that while quite good-looking, streaming 4k video still has to jump through some of the same compression hoops that lower resolutions of HD video must do, meaning that they'll be playing at a much lower bit rate than you'd see, if you were to watch it from the source. On smaller videos, this can be less noticeable, but when blown up big, compression artifacts can be easier to spot.

1080p remains top size in most consumer HDTVs, as well as the service's previous resolution limit. Newer-model phones like the iPhone 4 and HTC Evo are just now becoming capable of shooting in the lesser 720p resolution, leaving 1080p and above to dedicated filming hardware.

Related: Quick Guide: HDTV Resolution Explained
720p vs. 1080p
YouTube tries for the TV again with Leanback

A 4k video in YouTube

A 4k video in YouTube. 1080p--the previous YouTube size limit--is approximately a fourth of the size.

(Credit: Screenshot by Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

E-mail Josh Lowensohn

If you have a question or comment for Josh Lowensohn, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Submit your question or comment here: 0 of 1500 characters

Josh Lowensohn joined CNET in 2006 and now covers Apple. Before that, Josh wrote about everything from new Web start-ups, to remote-controlled robots that watch your house.

Recent posts from Apple Talk
Reports: White iPhone 4 thicker than black version
Samsung sues Apple over 10 patents in the U.S.
Apple tops Microsoft's quarterly sales, profits
Report: Foxconn workers charged for iPad 2 leaks
Verizon iPhone boosts Apple's smartphone share
Study: Google to take Apple's app crown by July
Apple VP sells off $13.7 million in stock
Jobs says Apple will testify on location issue
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (35 Comments)
by firedrakeseqoa July 9, 2010 3:50 PM PDT
haha still now the raw video from recording device. yet still cool
Reply to this comment
by assman July 9, 2010 4:09 PM PDT
Wow, that's truly impressive. I thought they would have difficulty handling the bandwidth from 1080p videos.. but apparently they have built an infrastructure so efficient and capable that they can provide bandwidth cheap enough that they can get away with this. Google is awesome.
Reply to this comment 4 people like this comment
by jaguar717 July 9, 2010 9:44 PM PDT
It's actually even more data than the article suggests.

1080p = 1920x1080 or about 2 megapixels.
4096 = 4k x 3k or about 12 megapixels.

That's 6x as much information. Of course, even my 30" monitors at work only run 2560x1600.
How about we work on a realistic "super HD" that computer and TVs could both head toward? Something in the 2400x1600 area.
3 people like this comment
by Thranx July 12, 2010 9:09 AM PDT
"How about we work on a realistic "super HD" that computer and TVs could both head toward?"

The cutting edge camera hardware is going 4k. It wouldn't make sense to design an intermediary in the mid range. We went from 640 interlaced (i.e. 320 lines of data) to 1080p... and while we're not completely there yet with much of our consumer devices, it is the standard for current TVs.

The industry should absolutely not muddy the waters with an intermediate format. Go 4k in time for the next big hardware refesh 8 years from now. The tech is here now, but there is no percived value when Joe Consumer is just now buying his 1080p TV and watching some football on it and saying "wow, this is great!"
by Sporlo July 9, 2010 5:05 PM PDT
This is completely useless for a massive majority of YouTube users.

The over-compression of YouTube videos can get pretty frustrating. Most people never even view videos in larger than 854x480, which is the size of YouTube's expanded video player (although the iPad and iPhone 4 both have higher resolutions than that), so even 1280x720 videos don't get played natively most of the time. I tried uploading a video that was exactly 854x480, which SHOULD look perfect in the video player, but instead YouTube decided to compress the hell out of it.

Why should you have to upload HD videos just to get 854x480 quality?
All this extra data is just costing Google more, which in turn just promotes further use of advertising.
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by kodybryson July 9, 2010 6:50 PM PDT
"Why should you have to upload HD videos just to get 854x480 quality?"

You don't.

"All this extra data is just costing Google more, which in turn just promotes further use of advertising."

Yes, because the only reason Google has ads is to pay their costs, they're not at all concerned with making a profit.
by veggiedude--2008 July 10, 2010 11:31 AM PDT
"Yes, because the only reason Google has ads is to pay their costs, they're not at all concerned with making a profit."


Tell that to their shareholders.
1 person likes this comment
by Sporlo July 10, 2010 2:56 PM PDT
kodybryson:
Have you tried uploading the same video in 854x480 and 1920x1080? They both end up with far too much compression noise, and it's not until you view the 1080 video in a smaller size that you get the original pre-compression quality of something smaller such as the 854x480 video.
by mahdi haeri July 12, 2010 7:43 AM PDT
"Yes, because the only reason Google has ads is to pay their costs, they're not at all concerned with making a profit."
Or better say they are working for their grandpa
by justin76here July 9, 2010 5:42 PM PDT
If I could get my hands on a drive-in theater screen, I'd be set! Star Wars Kid in super HD!
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by karpenterskids July 9, 2010 7:48 PM PDT
One word: WOW.

I guess it's nice to have this option, even though I'll most likely never use it. Not for another 5 or 10 years, anyways.

I guess Youtube's being visionary? So for that, they get my applause.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Brandon_Miletta July 9, 2010 8:32 PM PDT
I would just like to point out for the writer of this article, that I think you got your film resolutions mixed around. 4k isn't a standard film resolution. The standard film resolution is actually what you say IMAX resolution is (2k, which is 2048x1080). IMAX resolution is actually usually 6k or 8k (not 2k, like in the article). SO long story short, is that 4k is actually a higher resolution than normal film, but a lower resolution than IMAX.

Anyway, I am excited!
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by sickjohnson July 11, 2010 1:55 PM PDT
I thought that IMAX theaters where going to 4K DLP projectors for 3-D and everything else? But I like the sound of 8K WOW!
I have seen some 4K on LED (Barco NX-4) screens and that was unreal, makes you think that the days of the projector are short but then there would be a problem with having the sound come out from behind the screen.
The future looks BRIGHT!
by EvanSei July 9, 2010 9:52 PM PDT
well for me (and the vast majority) this is completely useless, and in fact probably cost google more than it's worth but I must give them credit for the innovation and will not complain....even though the vuvezula background button was way cooler :)
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Anonomous_1 July 9, 2010 9:57 PM PDT
So... How the heck can anybody afford the equipment for something like this?
Reply to this comment
by AaronMK July 9, 2010 10:11 PM PDT
I consider the actual resolution of a video stream to be that to which the video must be scaled to hide compression artifacts. You tube has very visible compression (as mentioned in the article), so the actual resolution of their 1080p is not that high. I am hoping that with 4k, there will finally be material with an "actual resolution" large enough to take advantage of my 2k display.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by themightydeity July 10, 2010 2:39 AM PDT
i think its better for youtube to make 5.1 channel sound first, rather that just putting 4k videos with 2 channel sound
Reply to this comment 4 people like this comment
by sickjohnson July 11, 2010 1:59 PM PDT
Now you are talking BANDWIDTH!!!
Someone told me that more then 2/3 of a bluray is sound, if that is true I can see why 4K can be done but 5.1 is left out of the picture.
1 person likes this comment
by skyscraperjim July 10, 2010 6:05 AM PDT
Interesting tech demo, even though 99.9% of users won't have the display (or bandwidth) capable of making this useful. I would just be happy if YouTube didn't default to the crappiest resolution every time I opened a video (even though I changed my settings to always open in HD).
Reply to this comment
by Yelonde July 10, 2010 7:30 AM PDT
Do consumer graphics cards even support such a resolution? I think it is cool that youtube allows for this, but seriously, the only thing that is going to happen for most users is that they won't tell a difference between 4096p, and 1080p. Besides that, that is a lot of information for just 1 video. Some ISP's like comcast are soooo concerned about each customer's "fair share" of internet data traffic, and may try to stop the viewing of such videos.
Reply to this comment
by arahman76 July 10, 2010 8:26 AM PDT
My Laptop with i7 720QM (1.60GHz) processor and ATi Mobility Radeon 5730 Graphics Card seems to be able to handle the 4k videos fine.

I wonder, what's the size limit for the 4k videos? If it's still 1GB, it's gonna suck.
1 person likes this comment
by Yelonde July 10, 2010 12:09 PM PDT
@

arahman76

Well, my iMac with a mobility 4850 can play 4k videos fine, but still, there is no consumer graphics card that can natively display it, pixel for pixel.
1 person likes this comment
by veggiedude--2008 July 10, 2010 11:35 AM PDT
Kinda like Apple building Snow Leopard last year to support 16 terabytes of RAM. We ain't gonna have to use that ability for many many years. But I guess its cool.
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by r-e-l July 10, 2010 1:45 PM PDT
it is cool ....

and lets not forget. If its made by Apple or Goggle then its double the cool as for them we don't need to measure innovation in terms of practicality and that makes is REALLY cool.
1 person likes this comment
by makryger July 10, 2010 4:03 PM PDT
Ugh. Does this mean I have to buy a new TV?
Reply to this comment
by tipoo_ July 11, 2010 7:16 AM PDT
So what? Their 1080p videos are still lower bitrate than a standard DVD. Fix that first before moving on to obscure resolutions.
Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by mccomatosis July 11, 2010 8:31 AM PDT
I'm a director of a planetarium in Florida, and I know that the planetarium field is one place where 4K videos could be really useful. The full-dome video systems that some facilities use can easily attain a 4K (or higher!) resolution over the entire dome, and with on-the-fly warping software available for Mac, showing this sort of video on the dome could be mighty impressive! The bandwidth issue is certainly valid...but a dedicated corporate line (as most planetariums have) easily would support the vast amount of data needed. Very interesting, YouTube...
Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by MikeGravo13 July 11, 2010 12:10 PM PDT
Now all I need to do is save 30 grand for a RED ONE and I can start shooting home video at 4K.
Reply to this comment
by sickjohnson July 11, 2010 2:14 PM PDT
I beleave that sony had a 4K projector for sale yeas ago (pre 2007) for home use. Of course you would have to get their fancy tapes and tape player to view a true 4k source. Kind of funny that it uses good old co-ax cable for all that data.

HDMI126.9 I can see it now...looks a lot like co-ax...LOL
Reply to this comment
by gregorytga July 11, 2010 4:00 PM PDT
4k with Flash is kinda like strapping a jet engine on a biplane. As a stress test with my Mac Pro I was able to play 8 1080p movies at once, (my dual 2 Ghz G5 from years ago couldn't play one). However, with Flash, even 1080p drops frames.

Perhaps if this were streaming H264 then we might have something.
Reply to this comment
by rightbing July 11, 2010 7:24 PM PDT
4K - thats nuts! - but I love it. The higher res the better - better yet - pipe it directly to my visual cortex!
Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (35 Comments)  
advertisement
CNET River

Using sat-nav data to set speed traps

TomTom's GPS data can help drivers avoid congestion, but it also helps Dutch police find where people break speed limits. TomTom says that's a no-go.

Apple: We'll fix iPhone tracking 'bug'

The iPhone maker breaks its silence and says an iOS update coming soon will address a location-tracking furor involving a "crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database."

About Apple Talk

Josh Lowensohn grew up in a household full of technology. From a young age he was taking apart computers, snaking Cat 5 cable through walls, and reprogramming video games. Prior to joining CNET, Josh covered breaking video game news and wrote game reviews. Since then he's spent his time covering everything from Web apps to all of Microsoft's latest moves. For this blog, Josh is keeping a close eye on everything Apple.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Apple Talk topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right