Higher-Resolution YouTube Videos Currently In Testing 214
jason writes "YouTube has never really been known for streaming videos at a high resolution, but it appears that they are taking early steps at providing higher quality videos. The project was announced last year by the site's co-founder Steve Chen, and now appears to be in the earliest stages of deployment. By adding a parameter onto the end of a video's URL you're able to watch it in a higher quality (in terms of audio and video) that is actually quite noticeable. Not all videos have been converted at this point, but they do have millions upon millions of videos that they need to do."
Converting (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I would argue that of the millions of videos on the net that I think need to be at a higher quality, very few of them are on YouTube.
Quality problem (Score:2, Insightful)
High Quality? I think Not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Conversion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Technically.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, recently, they've added the ability for video decoding to be hardware-accelerated, but only when the video is fullscreen. I'm still amazed that the vector graphics aren't accelerated, even if it's when Flash is a plugin -- at this rate, we'll have hardware-accelerated SVG in Firefox before we'll have properly hardware-accelerated Flash.
Now, when YouTube has the option to also serve the video in a straight mp4 container (or similar)...
CPU Loading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:High Quality? I think Not. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you browse YouTube a bit, and subscribe to the channels that are actually worthwhile, you will quickly build up a feed of interesting stuff with new videos every day. You can use featured videos to get some ideas of new channels to consider. On the other hand, using "most viewed" and "currently watching" to find good stuff is a waste of time. As a random example of something "worthwhile" (in my opinion), consider Wallstrip [youtube.com]--a show that does profiles on companies and stock trends, and is infused with sarcasm and wit. There are also channels that discuss science, that do decent original comedy, there is a national geographic channel, etc.
Frankly I think YouTube is dropping the ball a bit by not providing a more useful method of finding the best content. An Amazon-like "people who subscribe/rate like you also like..." would help alot. Just as Slashdot uses various tricks (moderation, friends/foes, etc.) to bring attention to the quality material, YouTube should work harder to bring the good material to the top. The current star-ratings, comment-ratings, and ranking-by-viewing are not working very well. Frankly I don't care about the ratings of YouTube at large; I care about the ratings of a finite subset of like-minded users.
Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (Score:4, Insightful)
of course, to get DVD resolution videos to display you need to upload dvd resolution in the first place.
Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (Score:3, Insightful)
At the client end, as people have said... using H.264 means they can increase the resolution/quality with modest bandwidth increase.
At the server end... well, do you KNOW who owns YouTube now??
Re:I already mourn the loss of stage6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is that I would gladly pay $40/month for a site like Stage6. I pay around $60/month currently for cable television but rarely watch it because the shows I like are inconvenient to watch. Yeah, there's MythTV and Tivo, but there's rarely a time when I'll sit down and plan what I'm going to watch. I'd much rather browse and get that instant gratification. It would be great if the producers of these shows could come to some advertising/subscription agreement. I have looked at iTunes, but the selection there was dismal.
Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (Score:5, Insightful)
One other interesting thing is that I haven't been able to find another high-quality video on youtube. I tried the &fmt=6 parameter on several videos, both popular and new. Two of these videos (a Fall Out Boy video [youtube.com] and an NBA recap [youtube.com]) loaded with the parameter, but didn't look any better. A quick check showed that the same
Re:How will they handle the higher bandwidth needs (Score:3, Insightful)
Stone age sound (Score:3, Insightful)
And still monaural sound.
I don't get it. What is it that made people accept this abysmal stone age technique? We have two ears, they give sound a spacial dimension and there is nothing better enhancing the video experience than giving it a great sound.
Monaural. How ultra retro - AM broadcast quality of the 60s.
Painful for those with ears, alas.
Re:Stone age sound (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line for Youtube is that keeping monaural sound is an easy way to cut the audio size of videos in half with results that only 5-10% of users will notice/care about.