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 Introduces 60fps Video Support

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the aw-that's-nothin' dept.

Media 157

jones_supa (887896) writes Google's YouTube announced that it's adding two new features that will especially benefit people who enjoy watching gameplays and those who stream games live. Most excitingly, the site is rolling out 60 frames per second video playback. The company has a handful of videos from Battlefield Hardline and Titanfall (embedded in the article) that show what 60fps playback at high definition on YouTube looks like. As the another new feature, YouTube is also offering direct funding support for content creators — name-checking sites like Kickstarter and Patreon — and is allowing fans to 'contribute money to support your channel at any time, for any reason.' Adding the icing on the cake, the website has also a number of other random little features planned, including viewer-contributed subtitles, a library of sound effects and new interactive info cards.

cancel ×

157 comments

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

Like it matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338053)

Comcast & Verizon are screwing with YouTube so badly I can't watch videos without constant buffering anyways...

Re:Like it matters (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 months ago | (#47338261)

Wow, that sucks. I was instantly able to watch 1080p with no buffering. 100mb/s for a few seconds then half of the time-line was buffered about 5 seconds after I clicked play. Too bad my ISP doesn't have a YouTube CDN. My YouTube comes from a PoP in Chicago over my ISP's transit.

I wonder how fast YouTube really is. If only I could afford the faster tiers, even if just to test.

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339401)

I don't think more fps adds that much more data. Changes between frames are less likely in 20ms than in 40ms, so the differential encoding algorithm also outputs less data.

Re:Like it matters (1)

DemoLiter3 (704469) | about 2 months ago | (#47338267)

I've downloaded the Titanfall Gameplay video and mplayer definitely says it's 30 fps, so I'm guessing it's bullshit.
VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 30.000 fps 3000.0 kbps (366.2 kbyte/s) Also, even if it worked - what's the point of having a 60 fps video for a console game that can barely get 30?

Re:Like it matters (1)

StankeyoSmith (3715761) | about 2 months ago | (#47338287)

I've downloaded the Titanfall Gameplay video and mplayer definitely says it's 30 fps, so I'm guessing it's bullshit.

VIDEO: [H264] 1280x720 24bpp 30.000 fps 3000.0 kbps (366.2 kbyte/s)
Also, even if it worked - what's the point of having a 60 fps video for a console game that can barely get 30?

WTF, why are you going on about some video file you downloaded?
The article talks about YOUTUBE support for 60fps videos.

Re:Like it matters (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 2 months ago | (#47338379)

He is talking about the fact that you can download, more or less, any video from YouTube using a third party web site...

But those web sites don't always have access to every version of the video on YouTube and in this case, for sure don't have access to the 60fps versions...

So he is watching the 60fps version on the web site and downloading the 30fps version and getting all confused...

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338911)

> So he is watching the 60fps version on the web site and downloading the 30fps version and getting all confused...

Their "Stats for nerds" (right-click on video) says the 60fps is playing at 30fps. Changing to Full HD made it reach some 53fps, but only for a few moments.

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339407)

What I'd like to know- I uploaded 1080p 60fps videos to youtube in the past, and youtube made them 30fps. Do I have to reupload them or does Youtube have the originals and will they reprocess them to provide 60fps versions?

Re:Like it matters (0)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 months ago | (#47338381)

He downloaded the video so he could look at its technical data. I watch many YT videos, but I never stream them.

Streaming seems aimed at the impatient, but I think it takes more patience to sit through buffering than to download the whole thing and then watch.

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339217)

You get buffering on Youtube? Have you told your ISP - there's got to be something seriously wrong there.

Re:Like it matters (1)

Narishma (822073) | about 2 months ago | (#47339713)

Youtube has different versions of each video in different formats and/or different resolutions. So it really depends of which one he downloaded.

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338447)

WTF, why are you going on about some video file you downloaded? The article talks about YOUTUBE support for 60fps videos.

Because YouTube has been fucking with video quality for the past few years.

When you were able to get a 1080p MP4 with its audio stream included in the file, transmitted over HTTP (format 37), it didn't buffer or stutter while seeking. Last September, when they changed it so that anything over 1280x720 required the use of the disgusting DASH (which downloads separate MP4 and M4A audio streams) for anything higher, browser-based YouTube experience started to suck. (They also made it so that any audio uploaded at 256kbps was nuked and was only available in 128kbps M4A) Fuck having to download/remux formats 137 and 140 back together in order to get the same ability to seek through a video that we used to be able to get directly from the web browser.

The problem is that without downloading the video and analyzing it, you can't tell anything other than that the qualitative experience sucks compared to what it was a couple of years ago.

Re:Like it matters (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 2 months ago | (#47338497)

Then links to videos that are supposed to demonstrate 60fps except they don't appear to.

Re:Like it matters (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 months ago | (#47338539)

Must be from consoles because they "support silky smooth 30fps" this includes as a marketing point. And 60fps is "too much for the human eye to handle," as droves of console users say. So no big surprise, they're just catering to them.

For 2D games too (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47338313)

Games for classic game consoles (Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super NES) routinely keep a stable 60 fps.

Re:For 2D games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338677)

Until they draw too many sprites on screen.

Re:For 2D games too (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47339417)

Some games slow down when too much logic executes. Other games run at full speed but still can't display all objects every frame because of overdraw limits in the VDP.

Re:Like it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338455)

The DASH files for 1280x720 and 1920x1080 are 60 fps for the 7SRTEXSpcyI video.

Duration: 00:03:29.97, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 5511 kb/s
Stream #0:0(und): Video: h264 (High) (avc1 / 0x31637661), yuv420p, 1920x1080 [SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9], 5503 kb/s, 60 fps

Re:Like it matters (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 months ago | (#47338561)

Only 1080p videos support 60fps. Presumably Google's logic is that if you don't have the bandwidth to support 1080p, then you also don't have the bandwidth to support 60fps.

Re:Like it matters (1)

zenith1111 (1465261) | about 2 months ago | (#47339453)

I've just watched the video in the article, 720p videos also clearly play at 60fps. 480 and lower all played at 30fps.

The video bitrate was around 4 or 5 mbps, maybe they will add a 30/60 fps selector in the future?

I was waiting for this for some time :)

Re:Like it matters (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47339483)

Presumably Google's logic is that if you don't have the bandwidth to support 1080p, then you also don't have the bandwidth to support 60fps.

My PlayStation doesn't support anywhere near 1080p, yet it gets silky smooth 60fps in the fighting game [i]Tobal No. 1[/i].

Re:Like it matters (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 months ago | (#47338329)

Don't tell me there is no capitalistic market principle here, one that
should be promising, that thus far has went unnoticed by you!

Re:Like it matters (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 months ago | (#47338383)

I have Verizon FIOS and I haven't had a single problem with Youtube, or Netflix for that matter.

Re:Like it matters (1)

dccase (56453) | about 2 months ago | (#47338483)

News for nerds: FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's Slashdot handle is "dreamchaser".

I can't think of another explanation for why Youtube isn't throttled for you.

Re:Like it matters (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 months ago | (#47338495)

Oh please...stop with the FUD. I've yet to see any evidence of throttling. Now it could be because I have FIOS Quantum and an over 80 Mbps connection, but like I said I have no issues. Also, I work in IT security as a consultant, not for the FCC so you can stop with the insults :)

Re:Like it matters (1)

dccase (56453) | about 2 months ago | (#47338535)

I take it back. I only have the 50Mbs.
It was a nice boost over the previous 15Mbs. For everything except Youtube.

Usually the first couple videos play well, but after that... Long pauses every few seconds.
I look forward to the new 6fps mode.

Sorry. No one deserves being called a FCC commissioner.

Can't upload... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338061)

Sorry, but I can't upload. My ISP is absolute shit, and keeps insisting I upgrade to the next tier package which gives me 2MB upload rather than 512k. Guess my millions of potential viewers will miss out.

And don't get me started on streaming HD content!

caps and peering deals aslo (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47338157)

let's say you have a good steem and then some say want to keep it you better give us an cut / fee or we will take some who will and your subs will have a hard time seeing your feed.

Re:Can't upload... (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#47338357)

Youtube accepts h.264, and going from 30fps to 60fps means increase in relatively small b-frames (frames which tell the difference between previous frame and current one) and likely few to no I-frames (large full picture frames).

As a result, file size likely won't go up all that much after encoding to h.264. Raw video output will double however, so if you can't encode on the fly, you will need double writing speed to long term storage.

I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338117)

Thanks but no thanks, Google. Maybe you should stop reinventing web video at a pace that others can't keep up with, and actually wait a little while for others to catch up? It's not like broadband in most regions is good enough to sustain all the stupid pie-in-the-sky bells and whistles anyway. Let the world catch up to the sands you're constantly shifting and maybe improve some of your other tech properly instead of change for change's sake. Don't try to dictate what the world wants before it's ready for it.

LTE has the upload but caps are to low / $10 GB (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47338167)

And at $10 GB makes the cost of doing it very high.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 2 months ago | (#47338193)

Why?

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338405)

Because the rest of the world wants a better existing Youtube service, not 60fps videos. Remember: although a few people might be interested in this BS technology for a few gamers in areas with well-equipped pipe, the rest of us have to deal with the sub-par Youtube player and nothing but Chrome can play everything properly because Google is too busy endlessly screwing with things on Youtube.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338227)

No. If your region can't keep up, so what. The new videos come in fine for me on Comcast even (West US, Chrome and IE desktop+xbone). I'm going to believe that your entire post is /s.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338387)

Because your region isn't the norm worldwide, and because there are tons of more practical, useful things Google could do with YT. Rather than constantly adding features almost no one cares about, they could make their existing service better. But nope, why bother when a few people can watch a few 60fps videos?

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 months ago | (#47338485)

Why do we waste so much money on cancer research when we could be feeding more people in a 3rd world country?

Anyway, it's easy for you to claim something is useless now, but then it becomes the next big thing. Most features won't pan out to be the next big thing, but if you don't try them, you'll never find out.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338669)

I'd rather Google improves what we already have, including working with ISPs to improve infrastructure so we can actually enjoy this kind tech. I'd argue there are far bigger fish to fry, and supporting it now will just add to the Internet's problems rather than improving them. But hey, if a few people absolutely need to clog up the Internet with wasteful nonsense like this (to the point where they try to compare it to cancer research or feeding the 3rd world) then who am I to stop the party? I'm sure this is far more beneficial to us than anything else Google could do with web video.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47339251)

It's not a google problem, it's an ISP problem.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 months ago | (#47338397)

Nobody is stopping you from watching videos on Youtube at a lower framerate.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338661)

Except all the jerkoffs eating the local pipe trying every new high-def format Google makes that won't be practical for another 10 years on the vast majority of the Internet infrastructure.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47339609)

It's too late, people waste the pipe by using as their music player, and thus often their ONLY music player. And then the 1080p setting is useless already. 60 fps is something new at least.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47339775)

You can have a music player in less than 1.5 Mbps. That's only 5% of a decent "pipe".

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339411)

Apart from requiring you to have a Google+ account just to remember your preference for video quality ... when said setting could be stored in a local cookie on your browser as it was for years before YouTube got fucked in the arse by Google.

Re:I can't even hide my excitement. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338619)

U mad brah?

Anyway it's called being a pioneer. An innovator.

If you want a company using current technology that everyone (including you) can use, Yahoo! (https://screen.yahoo.com/) is right over there.

Advances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338161)

I'm glad civilization brought us the ability to watch 60fps fps played by someone else.

Re:Advances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338229)

I'm quite to used to something like 500fps + in gameplay, and that almost a decade ago, almost during the last century. :> And here it is, 60fps! ..... I noticed. :}

Re:Advances (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338681)

*I'm quite used to something like 500fps + in gameplay, and that happened almost a decade ago, kind of during the last century. :> And here it is, 60fps! video ..... I noticed. :} Mostly these titanfall 60fps videos gave me some kind of motion sickness, instead to me higher fps rates only were relevant in gameplay, not so much in video. Regular movies are at what rate? 30fps? That is what most people are used to anyway. And the 60fps can most likely give you a strange feeling while watching. This requires testing and an extensive phase of getting used to, to find out whether it's relevant for future "film watching audiences" ..

Considering it takes nearly an hour... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338191)

of buffering to watch a five minute 240p video, I don't see how this is useful. The usual poor user experience with YouTube is to put the window on a second monitor and letter it stutter slowly through the video.

That's nice. (3, Insightful)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 2 months ago | (#47338243)

Now if only YT could stop defaulting to 240p on every video I play...

Re:That's nice. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47338263)

YouTube Center for fire fox will let you fix that.

Re:That's nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339295)

Or YouTube Options for Chrome.

Youtube is mostly crap (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338247)

People could explain something with 3 lines of text, but instead they'll make a 20 minute video about it.

Re:Youtube is mostly crap (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 2 months ago | (#47338345)

Ted Sturgeon, is that you?

Re: Youtube is mostly crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338831)

Oh so very true. I'd like to know if the dipshits get anything if I watch for only 10 seconds before deciding how positively stupid their video is. I'm all setup to avoid most adverts but that doesn't really mean anything.

Re:Youtube is mostly crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339667)

The same could be said about porn as well.

Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338259)

They're playing catch-up to Twitch.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338407)

......or 1993 digital cable standards.

Re:Too little too late (1)

terrab0t (559047) | about 2 months ago | (#47338841)

More than that, Google is buying Twitch.tv [arstechnica.com] . Adding these new features matches both Twitch.tv's video quality and viewer donation feature. This makes perfect sense if they are planning to buy them and partner more closely.

Hopefully they won't make the same mistake again by trying to link all Twitch.tv users to a Google+ account and generally break things.

Re:Too little too late (1)

GNious (953874) | about 2 months ago | (#47339287)

Something broke when they started unifying their platforms?

I know things changed when they did this with YouTube and G+, and there were apparently a ton of video-posts complaining about things changing, but I never personally saw anything that actually broke.

Disclaimer: I'm not a YouTube "content creator", nor a daily user of YouTube. I do use G+, and I do appreciate not having separate accounts for G+, GMail, YouTube, AdWords, Google Analytics etc (though, in reality, some of those are still separate accounts due to how Google hasn't completed the unification-work)

Other than using more power, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338273)

why would anyone want this? There are cases where 60fps makes a difference, but Youtube video aren't among them.

Isn't illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338377)

I thought by law video has to be 24 or 29.666. Isn't this what is MAPP law?

Re:Isn't illegal? (0)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 2 months ago | (#47338411)

I'm waiting for the obligatory nutcase to drop an insane "human eye can't see more than 30fps" comment.

Re:Isn't illegal? (2)

dltaylor (7510) | about 2 months ago | (#47338665)

Ran some tests back when CRTs commonly had >80FPS capability and we had enough computer power to run them. For most of the test subjects 85 was about all that they could readily discern. There were some, though, that could see the benefit at 100.

It's kind of like the IndyCar ad on NBCSN, where the passenger is mostly screaming and Mario Andretti (CART, F1 champ, Indianapolis 500, NASCAR winner, amoung the items on his resume) is observing the dandelions in the infield and the ladies in the stands, apparently in slow motion. Some just process visual data faster than others.

Re:Isn't illegal? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 2 months ago | (#47338983)

"I'm waiting for the obligatory nutcase to drop an insane "human eye can't see more than 30fps" comment."

Actually, I just checked the frame rate and reality only runs at 48 fps, tops. Anything higher is just theoretical.

Re:Isn't illegal? (1)

itzly (3699663) | about 2 months ago | (#47339201)

If your eye is tracking a moving object on the screen you'll need much higher frame rate to see it without motion blur.

Re: Isn't illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339255)

Video exists in the world at 24fps (movies), 25fps & 50fps (non-NTSC countries), 23.97 fps (movies for NTSC broadcast), 29.97 & 59.94 fps (NTSC & ATSC HD)

Why bother? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338429)

The human eye can't see more than 24fps. What a waste

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338695)

But your eye will notice an extreme difference while looking at a 24fps gameplay "rate" or at a 2400fps gameplay "rate", you are aware of this, right?

Re: Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339091)

Informative? Haw.

Re:Why bother? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47339209)

Total nonsense

OWE my eyes @ 24 fps !
âhttp://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4ââ

Silky smooth @ 60 fps !â
http://red.cachefly.net/learn/... [cachefly.net]

Re:Why bother? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47339221)

grr, fixed the 24 fps link

http://red.cachefly.net/learn/... [cachefly.net]

--
Fuck /. "Slow down Cowboy!" and its 5 minute timer for re-posting

Re:Why bother? (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47339353)

That just proves (poorly) that the boundary lies somewhere between 24 and 60. Not that 60 is required.

And, to be honest, a lot of things affect it - hell, even the local mains frequency can affect what hardware does and how it reacts at 50 or 60Hz.

You could have just used a codec that's not designed with 24fps in mind, or a poor implementation of that codec.

But, that said, the difference is minor, and on an animated "slew" rather than real-world video (YouTube isn't going to be showing much left-right 3D animation, more likely home video and recorded gameplay). Certainly for a web video, 24fps is good enough. Otherwise YouTube would have been overtaken by a competitor by now. The artifact you've got there (possibly exaggerated by other factors) is not something you often see on YouTube videos, for instance. Even animated ones. And they AREN'T running at 24 fps.

And even if you're right, the argument doesn't necessarily hold past 60. In fact, it quite likely stops dead at that point. And for some people it will stop dead long before 60 (British TV was only ever 50Hz, with sometimes 25fps, until digitisation).

Fact is, it's subjective and subject to bell-curve. The sweet-spot of storage versus optimal number of people seeing it is likely below 60. Certainly there's little point moving towards 100-200Hz like some claim for monitors. And for the vast majority of the bell-curve, 60 is higher than necessary.

By all means do it. But, outside of announcement videos, if YouTube were to just randomly make half of the videos 60fps and the rest 30fps, the chances that there would be any kind of detectable "preference" for the 60fps one is slim.

Firefox + 60fps = No Go (5, Interesting)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 months ago | (#47338545)

Unfortunately YouTube's 60fps support pokes a pretty big hole in the current state of Firefox.

To play back 60fps videos you need to be using the HTML5 player and stream the 1080p version. The Flash player will not work here.

The problem? Firefox doesn't support Media Source Extensions [w3.org] , which is what YouTube uses for DASH adaptive streaming [ghacks.net] . Mozilla's developers are working on the matter, but only for WebM [mozilla.org] for now. H.264/MP4 MSE support will have to wait.

The end result is that 1080p60 playback works great on Chrome, Safari, and even IE11, but is all but useless on Firefox.

I don't want to slag the Firefox devs too badly (hey, it's a free browser), but once again FOSS orthodoxy is getting in the way of practical feature development. H.264 support took an embarrassingly long time to come, and now Firefox is the only browser that that can't play back 1080p60 on YouTube.

Between this and their constant attempts to turn Firefox into a Chrome-alike, it's getting harder and harder to justify using Firefox.

The demo videos play just fine on Firefox. (2)

master_p (608214) | about 2 months ago | (#47339215)

On my setup, Windows 7, Firefox 30, the demo videos display just fine in 60 fps, 1080 p, using Flash.

Re:The demo videos play just fine on Firefox. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339507)

Ditto on Linux, Firefox 30 60 FPS works fine.

60 fps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338611)

there must be some high quality or fast video format that I am not aware of. TV shows are filmed at 29.97 FPS and movies are at 23.976 FPS.

Re:60 fps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338673)

there must be some high quality or fast video format that I am not aware of. TV shows are filmed at 29.97 FPS and movies are at 23.976 FPS.

Games

Re:60 fps? (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 2 months ago | (#47338927)

Yes, movies are shot at 24FPS. Isn't that horrible? We have sound and color, but we're still using that same piss-poor framerate from the silent movie era!

Re:60 fps? (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 2 months ago | (#47339307)

Yes, and directors have been using tricks and fancy effects for many years to compensate for the slow 24fps.

They should have gone to 60fps many years ago.

Re: 60 fps? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339099)

Before the advent of HDTV, TV shows were regularly shot at 60Hz. Sure, it may have been interlaced, but when you deinterlace to 30fps you are irreparably throwing away half of your temporal resolution. Deinterlacing to 60fps, on the other hand, creates a nice fluid video that retains all of the temporal resolution.

Re: 60 fps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339267)

FOX broadcast network, Fox News, FX, Fox Sports 1, ESPN & ABC are 1280x720 59.94 fps in HD.

Re:60 fps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339397)

TV shows are 60 fps, interlaced. You can tell it's more fluid just by looking at a television in the past 50 years.

Saturating the human visual capability (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338649)

At 9 ft from a 72 Inch Flatscreen with 720 dpi and 30 fps video the human eye will be completely satisfied and won't be able to see an improvement of 1080 dpi and 60 fps will be unreal to watch. Still, they keep selling the technology that more is more when its not, and they know damn well they have reached the limit of saturation with our human function.

Re:Saturating the human visual capability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338685)

At 9 ft from a 72 Inch Flatscreen with 720 dpi and 30 fps video the human eye will be completely satisfied and won't be able to see an improvement of 1080 dpi and 60 fps will be unreal to watch. Still, they keep selling the technology that more is more when its not, and they know damn well they have reached the limit of saturation with our human function.

Do you by chance design game consoles?

Re: Saturating the human visual capability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339107)

60fps is unreal to watch? Try telling that to all the people who grew up watching NTSC.

Soap opera (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47339497)

People who grew up wtih NTSC associate high-motion video with soap opera writing and soap opera acting.

Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47338791)

Flash player, 1080p, 30fps.

HTML5 player, 720p max, doesn't look any different. Sadly the HTML5 player does not report video fps.

Works on TiVo (1)

Burdell (228580) | about 2 months ago | (#47339129)

I just tried the Titanfall video on my TiVo's Youtube app and I did get 59.97 fps (TiVo is set to pass-through 1080p, and TV switches from 23.97 fps to 59.97 fps for this video).

Too bad Framefree never caught on (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 months ago | (#47339243)

There's a way to do video compression so that frame rate doesn't matter. It's called Framefree. [memberclicks.net] (PowerPoint, unfortunately). With that, you can crank up the playback frame rate as high as the output device can go.

Framefree was developed at Kerner Optical, which was spun off from Lucasfilm. Kerner went out of business a few years ago, and although there was a web site "framefree.us" and even a browser plug-in, it never caught on.

The idea is that the intermediate frames between key frames are mesh-based morphs, rather than MPEG-type block updates. Compression is compute-intensive, and playback requires a GPU. You can generate as many intermediate frames between keyframes as you want. Intermediate frame generation means interpolating the mesh points and then warping the image pieces to fit. So not only can you have very high display frame rates, you can also have ultra-slow slow motion. No MPEG-type blockiness, either.

While Framefree compression never caught on (probably because a high performance GPU in every set top box and DVD player was too expensive back then) the technology is used in sports programming to generate ultra-slow slow motion without using ultra-high frame rate cameras. Maybe it will make a comeback in the era of "4K" video with 60FPS frame rates.

Proofread... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339269)

"As the another new feature"

Will the "another new feature" be proofreading?

Re:Proofread... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47339563)

Submitter here, thanks for the feedback. For me to be able to continue delivering high-quality content to you in future, can you describe more accurately what the problem is with the sentence? Please notice that in the beginning of the summary, "two new features" is mentioned.

Re:Proofread... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339639)

It's a minor typo, right in the phrase that he quoted:

"As the another new feature"

'another' should be 'other'. More commonly it would read "As for the other new feature,".

'the other' for the second of 2 items; 'another' for a non enumerated "aditional" item.

Re:Proofread... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 months ago | (#47339691)

Ok, that certainly makes sense. Thanks.

Flash limitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47339293)

Be aware - the demo videos in the article are indeed encoded at 60 fps, however if you're using Flash, YouTube will only render them at 30 fps. Apparently this is a limitation with the Flash plugin and Chrome with Flash disabled/missing will run using HTML5 at the full 60 fps. Firefox is supposed to work as well when using HTML5 but apparently it's having difficulties (unable to verify myself).

I guess this is another reason to hope Flash dies soon (which interestingly enough it still hasn't).

Re:Flash limitation (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47339343)

That's alright. It'll just point out those people who think they can see a difference on their PC screen anyway - when they all start yelling baout "how much better" it looks, and then are told that it was only 30fps because of the Flash issue, we can just write them off as idiots anyway.

Re:Flash limitation (1)

Narishma (822073) | about 2 months ago | (#47339727)

That's not true. It's playing for me just fine at 60 fps (or rather it's fluctuating between 30 and 50) in Chrome with the Flash player (I've disabled the HTML5 player because it doesn't do hardware acceleration for some reason on my laptop).

How about fixing the site first? (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about 2 months ago | (#47339409)

When I open youtube.com or do a search, Firefox hangs for 90 seconds while loading the page. When playing a video, moving the playback point usually results in a black screen. Playback stutters way too often.

Re:How about fixing the site first? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 2 months ago | (#47339547)

This. Youtube isn't much good for watching anything other than short clips because it will often stop playing in the middle of a video, and be unrecoverable without reloading the whole page, and then you have to search for where you were. I have a fast connection, Netflix and other video sites have no problems. I can download a 2 hour movie in 10 minutes on bit torrent. But for some reason Youtube can't play 360p videos properly.

Something has frozen over. (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 months ago | (#47339551)

Hell has frozen over. I've been anticipating standard 60fps support on Youtube for years and it's finally come. My bitterness is gradually fading...

I wonder if existing videos at 60fps already on Youtube will be adjusted to support the feature.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>