Beta
×

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 Goes 4K — and VP9 — At CES

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the think-of-the-poor-pipes dept.

Displays 255

sfcrazy writes "YouTube will demonstrate 4K videos at the upcoming CES. That's not the best news, the best part of this story is that Google will do it using it's own open sourced VP9 technology. Google acquired the technology from O2 and open sourced it. Google started offering the codec on royalty free basis to vendors to boost adoption. Google has also learned the hardware partnership game and has already roped in hardware partners to use and showcase VP9 at CES. According to reports LG (the latest Nexus maker), Panasonic and Sony will be demonstrating 4K YouTube using VP9 at the event. Google today announced that all leading hardware vendors will start supporting the royalty-free VP9 codecs. These hardware vendors include major names like ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba."

cancel ×

255 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Still 3K$ for a monitor (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45861927)

I don't quite have to have it, yet.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45861977)

4K for $3K, isn't that a great deal!? Less than a dollar per pixel!

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 10 months ago | (#45862411)

4K for $3K, isn't that a great deal!? Less than a dollar per pixel!

4K is the horizontal resolution, not the number of pixels. Actually, it is 3840 pixels × 2160 for most "4K" TVs, or about 8.3 MegaPixels. Some models are much less than $3K. Here is one [amazon.com] for $500.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 10 months ago | (#45863003)

Also it's 4K UHD.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 10 months ago | (#45862035)

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45862119)

The Seiki SE50UY04 [cnet.com] shows up at less than a thousand pretty frequently.

The one major downside is that the cheapies almost certainly have neither Displayport nor HDMI 2.0 HDMI 1.4 will drive a 4k panel; but maxes out at something like 30Hz. Given that pre-canned 4k video is practically nonexistent (but would be the material that might have been shot at under 30FPS originally, and has plenty of detail in the original film if somebody feels like doing a good transfer), the only real use case is hooking it up to a computer, where the refresh rate will promptly unimpress you.

It won't flicker or anything, this isn't the CRT days; but 30FPS is Not Good.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (2)

aliquis (678370) | about 10 months ago | (#45863013)

If the film is filmed in 4K film wouldn't one really want to have that rather than 4K UHD?

Seem a little weird to shrink the pictures just a little bit.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 10 months ago | (#45862991)

That's not a monitor and doesn't even support 60fps at 4K resolutions. Try again.

Yeah... (4, Funny)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 10 months ago | (#45862057)

but the cat videos look _amazing_ in 4k.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45862067)

Supposedly Polaroid is to offer a 4k display under $1000. Still rich for me but for some...

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (3, Interesting)

ArtForz (1239798) | about 10 months ago | (#45862149)

Dell UP2414Q. $1299 for a 24" 3840x2160 60Hz IPS (also 10bpp and wide gamut, but... meh.).
Finally a monitor for us high-DPI weirdos clinging to their preciousss IBM T221.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 10 months ago | (#45862277)

Try $500 [amazon.com] plus shipping for a 39". Of course it's only capable of 30 Hz at UltraHD resolution because it only has HDMI, but it's available. I can't imagine why they didn't include a DisplayPort connector, since DisplayPort is royalty-free, but they didn't. I'm hoping they'll release another model this year that includes DisplayPort.

Reviews say Seiki customer service is nothing great, and there are more than their fair share of DOA units, but it's a start.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 10 months ago | (#45863203)

Probably because DisplayPort isn't suitable for televisions. What it really needs is HDMI 2.0, which can support rates much higher than 30 Hz at 4k.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862295)

I bought my 37 inch 720p TV for $5k when it came out in 2005.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862385)

Bro, you got ripped off! 4K has been around since the early 2000's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 10 months ago | (#45862359)

There is SEIKI and other chinese manufacturers with 4K TVs for $500-$1000. Not sure if difference is big to these $3K monitors for programming work, which is what I care.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 10 months ago | (#45863025)

Dell is supposed to release a 34" 21:9 3440 x 1440 screen which of course is lower resolution but possibly a more suitable format for movies (then again UHD is likely to be the standard so maybe not) and very nice for say FPS shooters as long as the aspect ratio is supported.

Re:Still 3K$ for a monitor (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#45862699)

Unfortunately the current crop of monitors is aimed mainly at the photography professional, since being able to see 8MP of a still instead of 2MP is immediately useful to anyone with a modern camera. The downside - for us that want affordable monitors at least - is that they then also put great emphasis on color accuracy and coverage, that $3k buys you a Dell UltraSharp 32 with 99% AdobeRGB coverage and factory calibration to a delta-e 2. In short, they promise you plug it in and the colors are pretty much perfect. Early this year should see the first consumerish monitors, Dell has promised a 28" inch 4K monitor for under $1000 early this year.

I expect the same will happen with 4K cameras soon, currently the state of the art is $4-5k professional/hyperentusiast cameras but a $1500-2000 high end consumer camera can't be that far off. If you can get amateur content from YouTube and professional content from Netflix in 4K, the snowball might really start rolling. It of course also wouldn't hurt if Apple offered a Retina iMac, they seem to do a better job with high DPI displays than Windows. In any case, there's really no "anti-4K" resistance like there was against 3D, it's only a matter of being worth the price. And I don't think anyone can dispute that it went way down in 2013 and the trend for 2014 looks to be the same.

Always how it goes with new tech (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 10 months ago | (#45862779)

It is just entering the consumer arena. Hence it is expensive. However since it is entering the consumer arena, we see companies like Youtube starting to support it.

Re:Always how it goes with new tech (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45862915)

Doesn't matter about entering the consumer arena with display technology. I think this is very limited by bandwidth technology and realistic costs of deployment in the US. It's going to be amazeballs, but in South Korea, Japan, and several EU countries.

YouTube said it was demonstrating streaming of 4k. I would assume that to be true since YouTube is a website...

Doesn't that put the required bandwidth for streaming at 20-30Mpbs in ideal networking conditions with moderate compression? That's from a single source, not aggregate speed. It's less of a hassle with their CDN, but still is at the top end of what residential networks with consumer grade infrastructure does.

I know plenty of people now that don't have ethernet connections anymore, and have transferred to wireless. This may well be a non-free upgrade for consumers.

TL;DR -- I don't know how many people with meet the software requirements

Re:Always how it goes with new tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862987)

We're talking about youtube here, well known for mutilating 1080p content with a H.264 encoder until it fits in 4Mb/s.
I'd be rather surprised if the 2160p stream is more than 10Mb/s average.

Re:Always how it goes with new tech (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45863201)

We're talking about youtube here, well known for mutilating 1080p content with a H.264 encoder until it fits in 4Mb/s.
I'd be rather surprised if the 2160p stream is more than 10Mb/s average.

So basically, look horrible, look like it was streamed.

Kind of defeats the point of the 4k investment though. Only local content is going to be played. On demand will need one hell of a buffer for full quality. Piracy is going to be difficult (a plus for them) since it can only be larger than BluRay, and that can be upwards of 35 gigs. Most people can't be patient enough to max their connection for several hours to get a movie.

Now we have a whole other format for 4k that we can pay extra for to Netflix or Best Buy.

It seems like that's what I get for laying down cash in this economy for a 4k display system.

- Limited expensive options for content
- Much lower quality if I do streaming. Not all that much better than 1080p with the compression.

Only way I see this working is if the cable companies get on board and start pushing out set top boxes that can process 4k content delivered across that bandwidth instead.

For somebody that cut the cord, 4k ain't good enough to make me plug back in :)

Re:Always how it goes with new tech (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45863211)

Sorry for the double post, but I reconsidered it.

If it was a 150 inch screen, with like 8k, and I could get streamed porn, then yes, I would consider getting a cable subscription again.

Industry. Take Note.

4K video (4, Informative)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45861951)

I had to look it up, so here ya go...

4K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels. Several 4K resolutions exist in the fields of digital television and digital cinematography

Re:4K video (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45861959)

Woops, forgot to provide the link to it [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia.

Re:4K video (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45861965)

I had to look it up, so here ya go...

4K resolution is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels. Several 4K resolutions exist in the fields of digital television and digital cinematography

And with that resolution you can see the layers of pancake makeup on your favourite actors and actresses, plus all that spitting during sports events in astounding clarity.

Well, I'd like the vertical resolution just for photo editing, it would be nice to see the full resolution without affect from scaling algorithms.

Re:4K video (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45861981)

And with that resolution you can see the layers of pancake makeup on your favourite actors and actresses, plus all that spitting during sports events in astounding clarity

...in stills.

It's still going to come down to bandwidth. VP9 might be a revolution in codecs, but it won't deliver 4k to me except for very special events until we've all got FIOS.

Re:4K video (2)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 10 months ago | (#45862011)

Yeah, but it will deliver 1080p and 720p video to you with lower bandwidth requirements. Less buffering and fewer artifacts (because of lowered data requirements and a corresponding lower rate of dropped packets).

Re:4K video (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 10 months ago | (#45862509)

Yeah, but it will deliver 1080p and 720p video to you with lower bandwidth requirements. Less buffering and fewer artifacts (because of lowered data requirements and a corresponding lower rate of dropped packets).

So do we call the new 4k video we show on these 4k screens 4096p? When do I get a smartphone that can record at this resolution direct to VP9? For that matter, I'd love to record to VP9 in 1080p -- that'd fit a lot of video on a 32GB SD card.

Re:4K video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862555)

So do we call the new 4k video we show on these 4k screens 4096p?

No, 4K is about the horizontal resolution. 4K will be 3840 x 2160 for 16:9 screens, so 2160p.

8K will be 7680 × 4320 or 4320p

Re:4K video (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 10 months ago | (#45862557)

>> And with that resolution you can see the layers of pancake makeup on your favourite actors and actresses, plus all that spitting during sports events in astounding clarity
>
> ...in stills.

Nope. Video shows you all of Hollywood's ugly skin conditions in all of their frightening glory. Although you don't even need 4K for that. Just regular 1080p will give you that effect.

Sometimes, you really don't want to see everything.

Re:4K video (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45862937)

Sometimes, you really don't want to see everything.

And yet... sometimes, in those special moments, you really really do want to see everything :)

I'm right, right?

Re:4K video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862711)

And with that resolution you can see the layers of pancake makeup on your favourite actors and actresses, plus all that spitting during sports events in astounding clarity.

Oh look, the same argument that was used against HD-porn.
I'm sure that the movie industry won't adapt their makeup process to deal with the higher resolution.

Re:4K video (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#45862835)

And with that resolution you can see the layers of pancake makeup on your favourite actors and actresses, plus all that spitting during sports events in astounding clarity.

You're like an echo from 15 years ago when 1920x1080 was to replace NTSC 640x480, both HD porn and HD sports looks great despite the naysaying. Movies and TV too, if the costumes, props, backdrops or special effects no longer looked real they simply had to improve until they did. Why should UHD be any different? It might be that many people meet it with a yawn like Super Audio CD vs CD, for the vast majority a regular CD was more than good enough already but the "too much detail" should be thoroughly debunked by now.

Re:4K video (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45862929)

see the full resolution without affect from scaling algorithms

Laserdisc baby :)

I really hate that waterfall effect amongst all others. It's a almost a deal breaker to me.

That's why the top of the line Laserdisc player and some titles just look awesome, even by today's standards. At least, IMHO.

Re:4K video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862003)

Think of it this way, you can view 4, 1080p soccer matches simultaneously on the same screen (1 in each corner)

Re:4K video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862547)

And fall asleep four times faster?

RedZone: a real-time highlight reel (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45862791)

Here in the States, we solve that a different way. The NFL (professional handegg league) runs a channel called RedZone [wikipedia.org] that compiles a real-time highlight reel of all matches in progress on any Sunday afternoon. Whenever a team gets the ball within 20 yards of the goal, RedZone cuts to that match until the team scores or otherwise loses possession.

Re:4K video (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45862039)

3840x2160 for "video" (four full-HD screens per display)
4096x2160 for "movies"

At $3K for a 4k screen, that's indeed cheap per pixel, but it's time for the chicken-and-egg of prices/adoption vs available content.

Re:4K video (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45863049)

That's a complete waste of money. You'd need a gigantic screen and to be sitting so close that you can't see all of it in order to need 4k. 4k is for movie theaters.

I'm surprised that the idiots on slashdot aren't aware of the pixel density that the eye can perceive is the limiting factor here. Even with the current crop of HDTVs being 1920x1080, you need a rather massive TV and to be sitting quite close in order for the pixels to be a problem.

4K really only makes sense for monitors and large screens like at the theater or ball park.

ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45861975)

Time to upgrade your ffmpeg app for ultra high resolution.

So how's it look? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#45862041)

Is there any word on how this '4K' actually looks at bitrates Youtube can push enough ads to pay for, and your ISP will permit?

I have the greatest respect for people who actually handle the challenges of paying the computational costs of video compression and decompression (and scaling if necessary) as efficiently as possible; but once their work is done, a nominal resolution (even an actual X pixels by Y pixels value, not some marketing bullshit) is nearly meaningless unless you are in the (rare for video, probably less rare for audio) situation of having such a high bitrate that the quality of your reproduction is being constrained by your resolution.

Barring an increase in bitrate, will it even be possible to distinguish between Xmb/s nominally 1080 video scaled up to 4k and Xmb/s nominally 4k video?

Re:So how's it look? (1, Funny)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#45862161)

you can see the individual brain cells of the russian drivers splatter on the camera as they get hit by trucks on the highway

Re:So how's it look? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45862215)

I have a feeling AT&T, Comcast, et al, are working feverishly to figure if they can make money with existing bandwith caps on this.

Re:So how's it look? (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45862475)

That's what killing network neutrality is about.
"The only way to get these 4k images are if you download from my pay-per-view"

THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (5, Informative)

QA (146189) | about 10 months ago | (#45862055)

That’s not the best news, the best part of this story is that Google will do it using it’s own open sourced VP9 technology. Google acquired the technology from O2 and open sourced it. Google started offering the codec on royalty free basis to vendors to boost adoption.

Google has also learned the hardware partnership game and has already roped in hardware partners to use and showcase VP9 at CES. According to reports LG (the latest Nexus maker), Panasonic and Sony will be demonstrating 4K YouTube using VP9 at the event.

VP9 keeps FSF happy, users happy, content providers happy, carriers/ISPs happy and hardware vendors happy.

Google today announced that most leading hardware vendors will start supporting the royalty-free VP9 codecs. These hardware vendors include major names like ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba.

VP9 is beneficial for everyone as it makes the codec available to vendors for free of cost – thus boosting its adoption compared to the non-free H.264/265. At the same time being Open Standard and Open Source it also ensures that users won’t require proprietary (and insecure) technologies like Flash to view content. The third benefit of VP9 is that it can deliver high-resolutions at low bit-rates thus using less bandwidth to watch content. It means that those on slower connections will not have to wait for buffering and be satisfied with low-resolution videos. It will benefit those on faster connections as they won’t have to waste their expensive bandwidth on videos.

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862131)

the best part of this story is that Google will do it using itâ(TM)s own open sourced VP9 technology

Yup. How often have we heard on Slashdot and elsewhere "There's no hardware support! H.264 is the standard! H.265 is the future! Just give up, everyone else already has!". Then Google go and sign up all the major players to VP9 support.

I'll just wait for the usual bullshit and FUD about patents and how VP9 can't possibly not invalidate all these mystery MPEG-LA patents (while at the same time ignoring all the patents On2 & Google have filed over VP8 & VP9, naturally).

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862179)

H.265 is the future. Every piece of hardware that supports V9 will support the superior H.265 as we'll.

Plus everyone that implements V9 will get sued out of existence.

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45863237)

Plus everyone that implements V9 will get sued out of existence.

Considering the size and wealth of Google and its partners you seem to be either ignorant, stupid or both.

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862351)

It's not fantastic at all. Almost nobody will use 4K on Youtube, not for a long time anyway. At best this is a ploy to pretend they're taking VP9 seriously, when in reality they renegged on their position to drop h264 support from Chrome.

Instead they've been using their browser dominance and Youtube to make everyone else exhaust their resources: first to support VP8, then to support H264, then to support Pepper (since Adobe is so in love with it), and now recently they've pushed their DASH streaming for certain high-res videos on YouTube, including DRM extensions, and finally they're making sure people are too busy to even do that by forcing them to adopt VP9 as well.

In short, this is only fantastic if you're a fan of a fragmented codec ecosystem that benefits the person who got there first the most, and just makes everyone else fall behind. Google just does what they want, calls it a standard, and then everyone else has to dance to their tune. And people fall for it, hook line and sinker, because hey... it's an open standard, right? Who cares if Google didn't spend any time evangelizing it first with other browser vendors, when they can dictate the direction of 4K streaming as they see fit?

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (2)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 10 months ago | (#45862393)

And this is a problem how? It is called competition you know, a free market you know. And guess what I am mucho happier that Google is competing without clubbing everybody over the head using patents. You know like that Fruit company?

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862657)

While it's amusing, the sad reality is that people actually do think that way. You know, that just as long as Google's not directly clubbing them, it's fine for them to indirectly do so. Just who can compete with Google, and who is doing so?

When it was just with regards to one product, their search engine, it felt quaint to argue about them having a monopoly or some-such, since they weren't really able to block anyone from entering that market, they just did a better job and put everyone else to shame. But what about now? Especially now that they have their hands in everything from the most-used cell phone OS on the planet to the largest video site on the Internet? Suddenly it's not quite so quaint.

Free market capitalism only works on scales. When everyone is the same size, it's fine to bring up it up in a hand-wavey way. And yet, there's hardly a lot of healthy competition out there at Google's scale, for search engines or video codecs. I hardly think that mom and pop can compete with Google if even Microsoft and Apple can't.

It's no longer a simple laughing matter.

Re:MPEG/MPEG-LA is like the Nuclear Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862659)

VP9 is like Solar, Google Won...

Re:MPEG/MPEG-LA is like the Nuclear Industry (1)

game kid (805301) | about 10 months ago | (#45862849)

Not so sure about "Won" given the earlier settlement with MPEG-LA over VP8 [slashdot.org] . "Made a deal with the devil to validate math patents and keep themselves out of hell a bit longer", maybe.

Everybody except Apple (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45862793)

And not a single Apple device will play VP9. Every Apple device will require transcoding, or using whatever format they find optimizes their [battery life|thermal envelope|PROFIT], which will nudge every well heeled, non-technical user to gravitate away from VP9.

Re:Everybody except Apple (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 months ago | (#45863127)

And not a single Apple device will play VP9. Every Apple device will require transcoding, or using whatever format they find optimizes their [battery life|thermal envelope|PROFIT], which will nudge every well heeled, non-technical user to gravitate away from VP9.

Jobs is gone. Android marketshare is up. Apple may not be as wedded to h265 as they were to h264. Things change.

Re:Everybody except Apple (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45863155)

True. Jony has destroyed much of the UI Jobs toiled over; maybe he will sell out and join this open standard. My money is on the no side of this though. I see Apple devolving into all the bad things with none of the elegance now that Jobs is feeding the worms.

Re:THIS is fantastic news! From the article... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#45863057)

Don't get your hopes up too high because I've heard the same all the way back to the VP3-based Theora and every version since. It's the escape hatch/emergency break to keep H.264/HEVC from abusing their near monopoly but in reality nobody seems to want to abandon them, not even Google. Kind of like how VC-1 is in the BluRay standard and in every player but 99% of recent discs use H.264. Even Firefox finally bit the bullet in October this year and said they'd use Cisco's H.264 blob on platforms that don't have native support rather than try fighting the windmills any longer, effectively waving the white flag.

Of course you could claim it'll be different next generation, that VP9 will be the new H.264 and HEVC the sideshow but I'd call you delusional. Despite the long list of VP9 supporters they're all HEVC backers too and that list is even longer, quite soon I expect native HEVC cameras to appear (there are already a few security cameras, but no "normal" ones) and while Google might have some clout on the Internet and mobile devices it's Sony, Canon, Panasonic, JVC and so on who still set the trends in video capture. Show me Google pushing hard for a VP9-reconding Android phone and I might change my mind, but I think it's just blustering like how they were supposed to remove native H.264 support from Chrome but quietly backed away.

They've had 4K videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862105)

I've watched them before and they brought a Sony GoogleTV device to its knees lol.

Even on a regular machine it seems to take a bit of power to play them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx6eaVeYXOs

4K videos of russians crashing into each other (2)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#45862137)

well worth the $3000 TV and the $100 a month internet bill to go with it

Re:4K videos of russians crashing into each other (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 10 months ago | (#45862167)

the $100 a month internet bill to go with it

You obviously don't live in the U.S. where decent speed costs a lot more than that.

Re:4K videos of russians crashing into each other (1)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about 10 months ago | (#45862205)

Yeah I hear a lot of 4K hype but it's all just noise to me because NOBODDY GON' BUY DAT SHIT when it costs $1000+

Plus the TV industry is far away from upgrading their equipment to produce the content.

Also, Internet pricing and availability sucks in America, yes.

Re:4K videos of russians crashing into each other (1)

alen (225700) | about 10 months ago | (#45862271)

not really, most movies from the last few years were shot with 4K cameras. just like most movies starting in the late 90's were shot on HD cameras in anticipation of blu ray and HD adoption.

the studios need to get the 4K masters and put them on a new format for 4K

Re: 4K videos of russians crashing into each other (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862533)

no, nobody on the late nineties shot on hd cams, they all used film for cinema and SD for TV. A lot of TV-networks around the world have not even finished upgrading their production to HD yet, let alone broadcast in more than 720p. also, there's virtually no content available in 4K (except yet to be converted/transcoded movies), no medium or player to deliver the content physically (one blu-ray movie is about 20 gb, so one in 4k should be have at least triple the size and not enou bandwith for live streaming/ota - broadcast. shure, you can compress the hell out of a video, but even if vp9 is massively more efficent than h.264, there's only so much you can compress something before using a 4k resolution get's pointless. besides, you'd need a pretty huge TV to be able to spot the difference between a 4k and 1080p video. I'm not even sure if that's even possible at "normal" viewing distances.

so, 4k is a long way off - sure it's great for content production, but bet you anything that the majority of youtube users don't care or is even aware of the fact that they can set a lot of videos to higher than 360p resolution.

i'm pretty sure, that tv manufacturers will have to look for another gimmick than 4k to sell their new displays in the foreseeable future.

Microsoft and 90s all over again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862173)

They are coming in and screwing with the web and codecs and mucking everything up. Google is todays Microsoft!

Re:Microsoft and 90s all over again (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 10 months ago | (#45862335)

Oh, yes, of course, an open sourced codec is clearly the same problem as a platform-specific closed source product designed to lock the customer in to a particular vendor.

The only thing they have in common is that you hate them both.

The most important question goes unanswered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862189)

What will it mean for my porn?

Re: The most important question goes unanswered (2)

danomac (1032160) | about 10 months ago | (#45862251)

When you see what they really look like you'll wish the resolution was 320x200.

Re:The most important question goes unanswered (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862831)

Ass pimples and ingrown pubic hairs where you can see the eye of puss through the cover up.

More Google ADD (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 10 months ago | (#45862343)

When Google bought Youtube they converted all the videos to h.264 and made that the standard. Now all of a sudden h.264 is evil.

Re:More Google ADD (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | about 10 months ago | (#45862407)

They didn't even need to buy On2 to get VP9. They could have used one of the open-source codecs that already exists. You know, like Vorbis, which is perfectly fine for most videos and not as resource-hungry.

Re:More Google ADD (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 10 months ago | (#45862501)

Do you mean Theora perhaps?

H.263, H.264, H.265 (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45862847)

I've read that Theora, based on On2's VP3, is roughly equivalent in rate/distortion to MPEG-4 ASP video (DivX, Xvid), which itself is primarily tweaks to H.263 (Sorenson video, used by early FLV). When Google added a free format to YouTube, it skipped Theora because Theora wasn't competitive in rate/distortion terms to what was already in use. H.264 and VP8 are a generation past that.

Re:More Google ADD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862603)

Perhaps you should look at the development history of Theora (which I assume you were referring to, since Vorbis is audio only). Hint: It's completely derived from On2.

Re:More Google ADD (0)

symbolset (646467) | about 10 months ago | (#45862765)

When MPEG-LA (the patent group behind H.264) was trying to form a patent pool to make Google's VP8 non-free, Google had to send their lawyers down there to explain to them why that was going to not work. Turns out Google now owns a huge chunk of their patents, and enough other patents to shut down their game. Now they have given up that nonsense and we get to have high quality video devices that are compatible with each other, free editors and hosting, streaming and media center devices. As a technology H.264 is fine, but as a mechanism for "we get to say who can do video", well that day is done forever.

Re:More Google ADD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862855)

When MPEG-LA (the patent group behind H.264) was trying to form a patent pool to make Google's VP8 non-free, Google had to send their lawyers down there to explain to them why that was going to not work. Turns out Google now owns a huge chunk of their patents, and enough other patents to shut down their game. Now they have given up that nonsense and we get to have high quality video devices that are compatible with each other, free editors and hosting, streaming and media center devices. As a technology H.264 is fine, but as a mechanism for "we get to say who can do video", well that day is done forever.

This is arrant nonsense. Google was forced to licence the H.264 patents from the pool due to their infringement with VP8. There are many links to this but here's one:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8

Also, in anticipation of future Google fanboi's getting upset, here's a pre-print indicating VP9 is pretty bad compared to H.265:

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

Re:More Google ADD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45863095)

Actually they didn't license anything, the actual contents of the agreement is secret. I heard that the MPEG-LA was forced to the agreement due to a nuclear situation, they where unable to form a pool for VP8 and their managed patents where of dubious application to VP8, and Google had inherited from On2 some patents that make a MPEG-LA attack on VP8 a dangerous situation as they predated some from the MPEG-LA pool of H264 for similar things.

The situation is like:
Company 1 has P covered by patent A, company 2 have patent B
Patent A and B are similar, being A older
If a judge rules that company 1 with P violates B, company 1 can argue:

  1.That patent B is invalid as any product uses patent A violates patent B, then patent B is the same as patent A with other description and the older is the only one valid.
  2.If both are considered valid then any product that implement patent B violates patent A and then it can sue.

So what? (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about 10 months ago | (#45862357)

With ISPs throttling them, 4K videos will probably play about ten frames in between each thirty seconds of buffering.

Minor typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862433)

Minor typo: it wasn't O2 that owned VP9, it was On2.

In other news... (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | about 10 months ago | (#45862457)

Related Posts

Is LG Ditching Google TV? Working On WebOS TV?
Goodbye Patent Evil H.264; YouTube Switches To WebM
Opera Welcomes Google's Move To Drop H.264 Support
Microsoft Backs H.264, I Back Betamax

YouTube goes 4K at CES, brings royalty free VP9 to fore front [muktware.com]

There are some very big players moving in HEVC.

Netflix has tossed their hat in the 4K ring with the announcement of 4K streaming starting next month.

The jump from streaming 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is not something that can be done by just flipping a switch. First of all, viewers need a 4K TV, which practically no one has yet. PCMag's Chloe Albanesius has informed us that Netflix's 4K content will require ''somewhere between 12 and 15 Mbps'' to stream properly. That;s a pretty serious connection which, again, not many .

By using H.265 HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) moving forward instead of the currently popular AVC H.264, Netflix thinks they will be able to stream the same quality they currently transmit at half the bitrate. Not only does this mean there's room for higher quality 4K streams, but the current HD content will be transmitted more efficiently.

It's unclear when we'll see 4K streaming available in standalone set-top boxes any time soon, or whether or not it will require new hardware in order to handle the increased resolution in the future, but for now it looks like the TV itself is the home for 4K streaming.

Netflix is bringing 4K streaming to TVs with H.265 and House of Cards [geek.com] [Dec 19]

DASH still sucks (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 10 months ago | (#45862459)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP [wikipedia.org]
Youtube has split up all video/audio over 720p into separate streams, which makes downloading much more difficult.
Some downloaders use ffmpeg to mux the streams together, but other than that, you're SOL for downloading anything better than 720p mp4.

Re:DASH still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862605)

And since you're not 'supposed' to be downloading, only streaming, I really don't think Youtube gives a damn.

HFR? (1)

Trogre (513942) | about 10 months ago | (#45862479)

Good to see further progress in YouTube video quality. Any word on when they're going to break the 30 frame per second limit and allow HFR content?

Re:HFR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862561)

I'm sure Google's already working on that behind closed doors right now with the HFR rights holders. Don't worry, in a few months we'll hear all about the "open standard" they've come up with all on their own, and it'll come with another shift in HTML5 formats already implemented by Youtube, so that other browser vendors will have to implement yet another of their technologies or not be able to show higher FPS Youtube content.

4K YouTube? Great... (3, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45862495)

So now we'll get idiots uploading cellphone footage of clips from Family Guy (dubbed into Spanish) scaled up to 4K instead of 1080p...

Downgraded to Full HD after 8 years! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862615)

My new laptop should have been 4k or even 8k. My 8 year old one had 1920x1200 (17") and my new one is less in "FULL HD" (whoop-dee-do!) 1920x1080. WTF?!? You can get 1920x1200 on a 7" tablet.

Re:Downgraded to Full HD after 8 years! (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 10 months ago | (#45862839)

Yes, but can you *see* 1920x1200 on a 7" tablet. I happen to (still) have 20/12 vision, and I can't. It's like hearing the difference between 320kbps mp3s and uncompressed rips. Or, more accurate 48kHz vs 96kHz music. Unless you are in the very tippy top of the population, you can't do it in the best conditions, and if you take your laptop anywhere but the perfect room with perfect lighting you can't tell even if you have the rare physical senses to do so. I have 2880 res on my 15" laptop; I run at 150% scaling for UI elements. It's unbelievably sharp, but I also use it as a tablet with my nose pressed against the screen for photos.

Too soon (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 10 months ago | (#45862665)

People still post 240p videos to YouTube so not sure I see a huge demand for anything at this time at 4K. I'd be happy if YouTube denied posting anything less than 720p.

Re:Too soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862869)

post typed with a potato

Consoles prior to the Dreamcast output 240p (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45862883)

I'd be happy if YouTube denied posting anything less than 720p.

Consoles prior to the Dreamcast output 240p, except for a few PS1 and Nintendo 64 games that output 480i. The Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube, original Xbox, and original Wii output 480i (or 480p if you were lucky). How would requiring 720p improve reviews of games for those platforms?

Re:Consoles prior to the Dreamcast output 240p (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#45863107)

Because, when the source is pointsample scaled (say from 320x240 to 1280x960) before lossy encode, the edge destroying quantization noise floor is pushed lower. Each pixel ending up as noise is 4x smaller than the original, while the apparent quality stays reasonable as each original pixel is now taking 4x the pixels in each macroblock. This results in the original pixels of the unscaled image being rendered more accurately. The cool part, at least with h264, is that large point resizes don't use up that much more bandwidth than a very high quality encode at the original resolution. Again, the trick of it is to do a point resize scale of the original, preferably using integer values.

Another piece of this is that youtube uses more bandwidth for 720p+ encodes which helps, but it also transcodes again after upload, adding even more noise.

Re:Too soon (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#45863053)

nah.. There's plenty of SD content out there that's relevant. Its lower bandwidth makes it more manageable on networks that aren't google fiber or top tier cable. This holds for both viewers and uploaders.

60fps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45862957)

And yet they still don't support anything over 30fps.
If they'd allow 60fps; that would be far, far better news.
Anyone who has seen 60fps footage will agree.

4K (1)

coop247 (974899) | about 10 months ago | (#45862993)

I cant watch a 480p video on YouTube without shuttering, jerking, load screens and a generally crappy experience. But I'm sure 4K will work great. Bonus points for something like the 5th different encoding scheme used by Google.

Re:4K (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 10 months ago | (#45863111)

Well I have to agree with that but if you look at the presentation from Google I/O from last May [google.com] and you'll see that VP9 uses less bandwidth for a given quality based on the demonstrations. That's the main reason for switching to it, plus it does deliver some great video. So if VP9 does play out that means less bandwidth than competitive codecs. Unfortunately VP9 to me at least is half baked because I've been watching the project since first seeing the I/O presentation and I have to say that it encodes very slowly, from full raw sources only using their app and the code is still buggy as hell. The FFMPEG integration isn't much better but hopefully Google will throw some more support around it and we'll see better speed and reliability. I also wonder what's going to happen with VP8?

is Youtube going to give me a 4K video camera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45863005)

I need a Sony F65

why bother? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 10 months ago | (#45863045)

They can't even deliver sufficient bandwidth to make 1080p look significantly better than 720. Adding 40% more pixels without sufficient bandwidth just drives up the noise floor.

royalty free != open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45863063)

Google's PR department mangles the language once again

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?