×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube, Now In Text Mode!

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the squeezing-the-pipes dept.

Media 102

techmuse writes "YouTube has introduced a new, higher-resolution text mode for video. The new text mode is far more efficient than their previous high-end, high-definition offering, and should bring entirely new levels of realism to streaming web video!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

102 comments

Really? (2)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | about 4 years ago | (#31700024)

this is actually cool. i hope its not one of /.s April fools jokes

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | about 4 years ago | (#31700044)

They really should run everything through an aa filter today. :D

caca-lib not aa-lib (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31700818)

FYI: The caca library outputs in full color text mode. The aa filter only outputs in gray scale text mode.

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

jrmcferren (935335) | about 4 years ago | (#31700054)

Nope, this one isn't a Slashdot April Fool's joke, this one is Youtube's joke. For more info on Jokes I've found so far please visit: http://www.kb3pxr.net/2010/04/april-fools-jokes-abound.html [kb3pxr.net] and please don't flame me for the ads.

Re:Really? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#31700196)

Ugh, I just wish /. didn't have to run a story on other people's April 1st jokes. Can't it get some of it's own?

Re:Really? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about 4 years ago | (#31700240)

Have you seen the jokes /. types come up with (e.g. last year's pink ponies theme, this year the lame chat roulette thing)? We're better off with other people's jokes.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

jrmcferren (935335) | about 4 years ago | (#31700280)

Oh Please don't remind me of that, not the OMG Ponies! thing, but the fact that I was stupid on that day. For a while first posts were getting modded up, I decided to start the first post stuff as myself. Later the mods started modding the trolls as trolls and my Karma hit rock bottom. In fact I think I'm still paying for it as I have to wait 10 minutes or more between posts, then again there may have been trolls on using an open WiFi I once had.

Re:Really? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#31700462)

Your recent posts have been starting at 1 for me, so your karma must have worked back up to positive by now. Perhaps you can't post more often than every 10 minutes unless you have Good or Excellent karma. If you can get six positive moderations a week for a month, you'll be up to Excellent where you can post reasonably fast and at Score:2.

Re:Really? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31702908)

I have to wait 10 minutes or more between posts

I’ve found that this seems to be a side effect of using the separate posting page [slashdot.org] rather than the fancy-dancy Web 2.0 comment editor.

Internet Explorer apparently doesn’t support the Web 2.0 fanciness, so you’re stuck with the other page... and the posting limit...

Re:Really? (1)

jrmcferren (935335) | about 4 years ago | (#31704070)

I have to wait 10 minutes or more between posts

I’ve found that this seems to be a side effect of using the separate posting page [slashdot.org] rather than the fancy-dancy Web 2.0 comment editor.

Internet Explorer apparently doesn’t support the Web 2.0 fanciness, so you’re stuck with the other page... and the posting limit...

Thanks for the tip, I'll see if that helps.

Re:Really? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 4 years ago | (#31700530)

Adverts? What adverts? ;)

Besides, if you didn't want flaming for them then you presumably know that they're hideous or something, so why put them up?

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | about 4 years ago | (#31700060)

Unfortunately, it also looks like they are pushing through the new page design which I am not a huge fan of.

The *glaring* problems have been fixed, but the way things are placed does not seem as smart to me...particularily the video description. It should be to the side of the video...especially on wide screen displays. Often it will have lyrics or something you want to read while the video is playing and you can not do this with a longer block of text (or with any text on a netbook screen).

Re:Really? (1)

auld_wyrm (634053) | about 4 years ago | (#31700580)

But the big question is whether this new high def text still uses flash or if it takes advantage of HTML5 2.0, unless of course you're in France.

___
A year of achievements already?

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about 4 years ago | (#31700948)

Unfortunately, it also looks like they are pushing through the new page design which I am not a huge fan of.

I've talked to a dozen people today about the new layout, and not a single person liked it - not the laymen, not the designers, not the programmers, nobody. The words "clusterfuck", "illegible", "wanky piece of shit" and "it's an April Fools' joke, right?" had been uttered.

Judging by how this thing looks and behaves, they probably haven't done any real usability testing, and they've partly left Opera out in the cold (videos now require "click to activate" and vertical centering is off on all "buttons", which is going to piss off tens of millions of people by itself). The comments are extremely hard to read, there are no borders, there is no colour, there is no real element grouping, ratings are binary shit... I'll be monitoring design/usability experts in the next few days to see what they have to say; I'd be extremely surprised if anyone found enough positive things about the new page design.

To be fair, the old design wasn't so perfect, either, but the new one has improved on very few areas.

I think they'll have to roll it back, or redesign the redesign, because the outburst is fairly significant.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | about 4 years ago | (#31701068)

Unfortunately, it is not a new thing.

I had a computer that was stuck in their beta test (until I figured out what combination of logging out/clearing cache and cookies would get rid of it). The layout was similar although they had some even worse features. The search tried to dynamically shrink the currently playing video (to the a small box in the top left) to display the search results next to the recommended videos...this simply did not work for me (firefox on ubuntu). The first search might sort of work but after that I would have to first go to the youtube homepage (search box would become non-responsive otherwise). Also, videos would frequently refuse to load, even if the same video in embedded mode played fine (or played fine on a system not running the new layout). Another hated change was the automatic play of the next video on the right hand side--you could disable it, but only per session...leave youtube and come back and it is back to autoplay.

There were a few posts about it on the youtube blog and the comments mostly seemed to hate it (although in the youtube language of "f this crap you are all idiots who cant design shitzzz"). There was an opt-out link that didn't work (and mention of an opt out link that should be on every single page in the new layout but I could never find it). Looks like they at least fixed SOME of those problems before releasing it into the wild.

I can still see a few clear formatting bugs (firefox, winxp) but at least the videos actually play...

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | about 4 years ago | (#31701176)

I know, they selected me as a beta user some time ago, and I happily deleted the cookies responsible for that monstrosity. There have been some improvements since then (most notably, URLs now look like URLs, instead of 524987-character garbage, and not everything is a playlist), but it's still garbage. If you picked a random person from the street, they would probably be able to design the page better and in a more usable way.

I honestly have no idea what they tried to accomplish with this, and why they haven't hired someone knowledgeable to do the design...

perhaps they chose today to break it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31702358)

because then they could say it was just an AFJ if no one liked it, and yank it without anyone getting an eggy face?

Re:Really? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31700078)

Didn't you watch the Matrix Text video that youtube put-up as an example? This is no joke. And yes the vid looked just fine. At last I watch youtube on my C=64.

BTW I've decided to quit engineering and join a convent.
Maybe then I'll finally get some sisters.

More details here ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#31700080)

YoutTube's TEXTp Saves You Bandwidth and Money"> [slushdot.com]

apparently it will save Youtube lots of money AND allow them to do streaming 1080p videotext.

Re:More details here ... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31702734)

It appears to me that it downloads exactly the same .flv as it normally would. So the claim of saving bandwidth is entirely fictional...

Not on all videos (1)

dfm3 (830843) | about 4 years ago | (#31700104)

I pulled up a few random videos and text mode only seems to be enabled for a select few.

Re:Not on all videos (1)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | about 4 years ago | (#31700168)

I pulled up a few random videos and text mode only seems to be enabled for a select few.

True. But since the Trololo guy [youtube.com] is one them, I can't help being very glad.

Also not in all countries... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 4 years ago | (#31700202)

It seems that it is USA-only, judging from the comments on the videos and the fact that I also can't see the TEXTp version.
I hope that THAT part is the actual joke. Though I doubt that.

Re:Also not in all countries... (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | about 4 years ago | (#31701660)

Not true, I was able to view them just fine from Germany. Some videos didn't have the option to enable TEXTp though.

Re:Really? (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 4 years ago | (#31700206)

No, this is legitimate. If you pause the video you'll see perfectly crisp ANSI chars, and not just an encoded video of ANSI rendering. Same thing with full screen. On my HD monitor it is perfectly crisp while playing. Also, both CPU cores are literally idle playing this video.

Of course Youtube would have to pre-process and "encode" the video into ANSI first - this isn't some video rendering mode of the player, but the actual stream is ANSI. It is very doubtful Youtube will actually go to to the trouble of encoding millions of videos in this way.

Re:Really? (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | about 4 years ago | (#31700488)

I'm sure it's april fools joke, but it makes you kinda wonder why they don't take a few hours and add Theora support.

HTML5 (3, Insightful)

OOSCARR (826638) | about 4 years ago | (#31700030)

No more flash needed!

aalib (4, Interesting)

zmooc (33175) | about 4 years ago | (#31700058)

Oh come on why not do it properly and port aalib to flash.

Re:aalib (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31700690)

Only on April 1st can you use "do it properly" and "flash" in the same sentence.

Re:aalib (1)

VisiX (765225) | about 4 years ago | (#31700894)

How do you know how they did it? It works on every video so they obviously are running it through some sort of output filter.

Re:aalib (1)

gknoy (899301) | about 4 years ago | (#31701264)

It does? I tried it on several videos and they had no textp option. Perhaps I am doing it wrong.

Re:aalib (1)

Spansh (219937) | about 4 years ago | (#31703458)

There's an even easier way of noticing it's an output filter.

The switch when clicking between your current stream and the text stream, is instant. If you switch from low to high def streams it actually reloads the stream. You can click the TEXTp to normal links as many times as you like and it's instant. They probably did effectively convert aalib to flash in some form (at the very least use the conversion tables).

Re:aalib (1)

zmooc (33175) | about 4 years ago | (#31702142)

They didn't. The april fools joke is not the first video; it's that after clicking on some of the fake related videos you're actually going to believe it:P APRIL FOOLS! :D

Could have done it for real... (2, Informative)

alephnull42 (202254) | about 4 years ago | (#31700068)

This technology exists e.g. http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Text_Mode_Doom [wikia.com] - would have been way cooler to actually implement the option permanently than just upload this Video

Re:Could have done it for real... (4, Informative)

Deag (250823) | about 4 years ago | (#31700098)

it is on all their videos just add &textp=fool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzCZ1W_CUoI&textp=fool [youtube.com]

Re:Could have done it for real... (3, Informative)

quadelirus (694946) | about 4 years ago | (#31700156)

You can also select it from the resolution selection box.

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

byornski (1022169) | about 4 years ago | (#31700242)

Except that it doesn't work for any videos that they haven't uploaded an ascii version of...... try it on an actual random video and it does nothing.

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

macshit (157376) | about 4 years ago | (#31700292)

Except that it doesn't work for any videos that they haven't uploaded an ascii version of...... try it on an actual random video and it does nothing.

I saw it on some very random videos earlier today (which seem extremely unlikely to be classified as "popular"...), and it was available (through the resolution-selector widget) on every video I looked at subsequently.

It seems more likely that not all servers got it at the same time or something.

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 4 years ago | (#31700374)

I found several where there isn't a text option. Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVRHOhLP-aA [youtube.com]

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31702848)

They only say it only works on “most” videos:

Or you can select “TEXTp” from the pulldown menu on most videos ... You can also append &textp=fool to most video URLs to test it out

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

Xzzy (111297) | about 4 years ago | (#31700272)

Is there any pattern for why some videos have the textp option, and others don't?

Maybe they only did it for popular videos? Because none of my uploads have the textp option.

Re:Could have done it for real... (1)

ender- (42944) | about 4 years ago | (#31700362)

That's odd. The videos people link to work, but any other video I try doesn't work. The mode isn't selectable in the selection box, and appending &textp=fool doesn't work. [shrug]

Nothing beats... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31700086)

OMG! Ponies!

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31700092)

Too bad thier new layout sucks on the main site

Curses! (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | about 4 years ago | (#31700130)

Curse the corporate firewall/proxy!

what kind of company policy blocks youtube but lets facebook pass anyway?

i'll have to check this out at home tonight

Re:Curses! (1)

Island Admin (1562905) | about 4 years ago | (#31700712)

Companies generally ban YouTube as it is a bandwidth hog. It is strange that facebook is allowed, as it is a productivity hog :P

nice (2, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | about 4 years ago | (#31700152)

Gotta hand it to them.
They usually manage to make their joke something entertaining rather than the boring stuff most other sites tend to come up with.

This makes life easier (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 4 years ago | (#31700190)

Great! Before I had to download it and open it in VLC to do this. This cuts one step out of my day - productivity increase!

Awww (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 4 years ago | (#31700264)

I'm actually kind of disappointed that you can't actually watch all (or even most of) the YouTube videos that way, it's a pretty cool effect!

Re:Awww (1)

VisiX (765225) | about 4 years ago | (#31700870)

I am disappointed that so many people on slashdot are posting this comment. You either jumped to this conclusion with no evidence or have horrible observation/problem solving skills. It is in the resolution options for every video. You can also add "&textp=fool" to the url.

Re:Awww (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 4 years ago | (#31701754)

"I am disappointed that so many people on slashdot are posting this comment. You either jumped to this conclusion with no evidence or have horrible observation/problem solving skills. It is in the resolution options for every video. You can also add "&textp=fool" to the url."

I'd thank you for the correction, except you had to jump in with the personal insults as well. Personally i checked YouTube right before leaving for work. I loaded several of my favorite videos and none of them were getting the filter effect. Since the last time YouTube did an April Fools joke like this (Rick Rolls) it applied to every video on the site, i thought the effect was not available on those other videos. I guess i did jump to the conclusion a bit, but it wasn't entirely without evidence from YouTube's past behaviour.

So why are you even trying to be "nice" and help others out if you have such a low view of all us idiots? Or did you forget to set your "&mood=civil" flag while loading your opinion?

Re:Awww (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 4 years ago | (#31702870)

Actually, you’re wrong; the YouTube blog [blogspot.com] only says that it works on “most” videos.

Don't try this at home (1)

zr-rifle (677585) | about 4 years ago | (#31700464)

Actually, you can to this easily with VLC, since it supports ASCII streaming of video files. Take a look at the available video outputs [videolan.org]. Quite an amusing april fools prank, but a better one would have been switching back to '90s realvideo (H.263) with the soul-crushing, endless pre-buffering.

YT being slow (1)

British (51765) | about 4 years ago | (#31700512)

If YouTube wasn't so slow(in the past 8 months), I would chuckle. But when I'm at home(Comcast) the loading of videos is dialup-level slow. I can no longer realtime-stream videos, and Youtube's code doesn't handle stalled loading well, where you can't pause it.

It seemed a bit faster last night with the new GUI though, for how ugly it is.

Re:YT being slow (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#31700874)

It's a comcast thing, not a youtube thing. I've been taking my netbook to the bar because their wifi is faster than comcast.

Yeah, I realize this is a joke, but... (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | about 4 years ago | (#31700524)

I believe VLC (VideoLan) had a textmode. No kidding. I have the old version, but choose Settings/Video/Output Modules/Color ASCII art video output. And no, I'm not kidding.

Re:Yeah, I realize this is a joke, but... (1)

Laser_iCE (1125271) | about 4 years ago | (#31700754)

Are you KIDDING ?!

Beat me to the punch!!! (1)

seandiggity (992657) | about 4 years ago | (#31700714)

A few months ago I was working on a PHPmotion [phpmotion.com] site that utilized libcaca [zoy.org] and aalib [sourceforge.net], which both mplayer and vlc use to achieve this effect. I've been stalling on it to work on other, more important [foojbook.com] projects, but maybe I'll revive it now, since this might become popular...

Re:Beat me to the punch!!! (1)

seandiggity (992657) | about 4 years ago | (#31700932)

Actually, everyone should check out ASCIImeo [asciimeo.com]...he beat YouTube to the punch :P You can watch anything on Vimeo in ASCII on that site.

About time! (4, Funny)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 4 years ago | (#31701072)

Finally, YouTube for us Lynx [isc.org] users.

Are the ASCII images 7-bit clean?

Not all of us can afford 14.28% additional bits, you insensitive clods!

blargh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31701704)

Not only the interface is worse, the performance too. On Athlon64 3000+ 720p videos do stutter muchly. It is the fault of the new look because it's still OK on channel pages.

Cool encoding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31701970)

I hope they keep this option available in the future. It's fun to play with and show people.

Done on CPU, apparently (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | about 4 years ago | (#31702758)

For those interested in the actual "feature", apparently the ASCIIization is apparently done locally on your CPU within the Flash player.
You can tell because you can turn it on and off without restarting the stream, and also because it loads your CPU.

Too bad certain countries are excluded... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31704304)

I've been trying to find a single video with textp implemented, and I haven't gotten a single one at all. NOT ONE. I've watched videos ranging from The Matrix, and Lord of the Rings, to Starcraft 2 and Supreme Commander, to Lady GaGa and Megan Fox, and haven't found it used at all. That's despite appending the fool URL to all of them. Bleh. I want to see what Neo sees, after all, we are living in a "Matrix"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...