YouTube Now Supports 4K (4096x2304) Video
Suddenly 1080p doesn't sound so high-definition anymore.
Feeling fancy with a 1080p video camera that you use to take clips and upload to YouTube? That's old hat now, as YouTube announced last week that it is opening up support for 4K video, which runs at a stunning 4096 x 2304 pixels.
YouTube announced this new development in a blog post on Friday.
Today at the VidCon 2010 conference, we announced support for videos shot in 4K, meaning that now we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4K. To give some perspective on the size of 4K, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet; IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors.
We always want videos on YouTube to be available in the highest quality possible, as creators intend. In December of last year, we announced support for 1080p, or full HD. At 4096 x 2304 pixels, 4K is over four times the size of 1080p. To view any video in a source resolution greater than 1080p, select "Original" in the video quality pulldown menu…To illustrate the power of 4K, please check out the videos in this playlist; each one was created by a filmmaker with access to a 4K camera. (Be warned: watching videos in 4K, even on YouTube, will require ultra-fast high-speed broadband connections).
If you've got ultra-high resolution monitors (better than 1080p), you'd do well to check out the full video list. It could be some of the sharpest video you've ever seen – streamed from YouTube, no less.
- Woman Jailed for Sending Herself Threat Texts
- Judge Gives OK for Apple, AT&T Class Action Suit
- Burger King Japan Installs ''Musical Showers''
- Stiletto Shoe Speakers Pump Out Six Watts
- Huge Horn Home-Theater Speakers for Giants
- InducTable Serves Up a Meal, Charges Gadgets
- 5 Great Desktop Games Also on the iOS
- App Inventor for Android: Dev't for Dummies
- Open Spot to Help Android Users Find Parking
- Master Yoda Will Guide You Where to Go With GPS
- China's Green Dam Close to Tumbling Down
- NA Version of iPhone 4 Finally Unlocked
- HTC 1 Promises a Minimalist ''Premium'' Product
- Browser Plug-In Will Delete Your Ex From Internet
- Play Those Classic SNES Games on Your iPad
- LEDs Makes Office Buildings a Forecasting Tool
- Shoe and Jacket Combo Recharges Your Gadgets
- PR Experts Say iPhone 4 Recall is 'Inevitable'
- Web Designer Claims to Own 84% of Facebook
welcome to last weeks news...
Nice! Although most people's bandwidth won't come close to streaming this without buffering every 10 seconds.
tried it last week... cpu at 98-99% (phenom iix2) Might be good for eyefinity... but it's not cool to watch videos with monitor bezels cutting the picture. So this is useless for most of us. Also it's not that sharp because youtube HD has artifacts from coding-decoding, and where there is fast movement you can clearly see pixelation.
just HOW much HD space Youtube have?
they GOT to be somewhere in exabyte range by now....
i watched one last week and the comments section was hilarious. bunch of apple fanbois saying that they could see the full resolution on their macbook pro's and that PC's couldnt possibly see what they saw. my aspire 8942 watched it with no problems, other than the usual youtube artifacts. 1080p was just as good and didnt take all damn day.
Nice! Although most people's bandwidth won't come close to streaming this without buffering every 10 seconds.
10 seconds? for me it takes 40 seconds JUST to load half a second!
I guess now monitor manufacturers are going to have to start finding ways to make smaller panels that can use this resolution. Hopefully ISP's will up their game to support the bandwidth, rather than just charging people more for trying to view the videos.
By the way, if most of you guys tried it, on 1080p display, like Kahless01 did, its normal you dont see any quality increase, you watch 4096p on a 1080p display, its never going to be better than the resolution your screen supports.
So, all I have to do now is find a monitor that can support 4096 x 2304 ** Or ** Get a 6 monitor Eyefinity setup, each monitor capable of 1600 x 1200 ** and ** Bezel-less for ease on the eye.Either that or just buy myself an iMax setup at home...Speaking of which, when is Steve Jobs going to sue the cinema business for using iMax? Isn't everything with an "i" in front of it his?
like iNTEL?
Just tried watching a 4k video on this Pentium 4 that I use at work - not a chance. At least the resulting slideshow had some nice pictures.
So, all I have to do now is find a monitor that can support 4096 x 2304 ** Or ** Get a 6 monitor Eyefinity setup, each monitor capable of 1600 x 1200 ** and ** Bezel-less for ease on the eye.
Or you could just buy a real monitor. Like an IBM T221. This LCD monitor has been out for almost 10 years now, since 2001, and can do 3840×2400 natively.
10 seconds? for me it takes 40 seconds JUST to load half a second!
Time to upgrade from that US Robotics 56k modem you're using. I have Comcast 50 Mbit service, video loaded in real time for me!
by the way, is it me or is their math way off, they say its 4 times what they allowed before? 1080p, or 1920x1080 is a little more than half of 4096x2304
correct me if i am wrong of course.
by the way, is it me or is their math way off, they say its 4 times what they allowed before? 1080p, or 1920x1080 is a little more than half of 4096x2304correct me if i am wrong of course.
1920 X 1080 is 2073600 pixels, and 4096 X 2304 is 9437184 pixels.
So 9437184 pixels is is 4 times the number of pixels. 9437184 divined by 2073600 is 4.55.
Is there a reason for not using the 3840 x 2160 resolution?
I find the name 4k a bit misleading. I think 2k, 8M or 9M would have been more appropriate!
That's great! Unfortunately, neither my isp or my wallet will support 4k video.
I just tested out one of the 4k video's and my E6550 @ 2.33 Cant render the video without skipping alot of frames. My CPU usage jumps to 100% darn you flash!
Thank you AMD for Eyefinity x6.
By the way, if most of you guys tried it, on 1080p display, like Kahless01 did, its normal you dont see any quality increase, you watch 4096p on a 1080p display, its never going to be better than the resolution your screen supports.
Yes, it downscales to whatever resolution you're using.
On another note, I already saw this 4k naming scheme bringing a big confusion. It's not 4000p, it's 2304p.
Unlike 4k, it's not a very catchy name to put on the bezel of an HD TV set in a few years, but at least it doesn't bring on confusion to the general consumers (imagine, if people here and in other tech forums do it, it will be much worse out there).
Let's keep coherent with the criteria applied to all other smaller resolutions (240p, 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p) and call it 2304p instead of 4k.
This is one prime example why people who are not very tech savvy - think our mothers, for example, will tell us that stuff in the computer realm bears no sense of intuition. And in this case they're absolutely right. Let make it easy, instead of bringing 4k just because for the marketing people it sounds better than 2304p, shall we ?
Amazing that till this day some people still don't understand how display resolution works.
hmmm, i was able to watch it with no dropped frames (Phenom II X4 810 @ 3GHz, about half load), though kind of idiotic when i don't have the screen for this
Yeah plays fine on my Envy @ 1.6 GHz at about 1/3 to 1/2 load does my Radeon 5830 help with the decode? I don't think this 4K thing makes any sense if people here are trying to work out the number of pixels and getting conflicting numbers my parents minds will explode. 2304p is the way to go. shame its not as nice as a number as 1080p tho...
I'd like to see that in an LCD 24" screen so I can get my PPI back.
My old lacie CTR used to be able to display resolutions far beyond my graphics card at the time. Shame work go rid of it.
http://xkcd.com/732/
They can't even stream the video content that have as it stands. Why go an raise the level?
As always, tomshardware is laaaaaaaaaaaaaaate with news.
Overkill.
Totally worthless
4K video on YouTube looks worse than video in 1080p or 720p on YouTube, but I think that's because whatever codec Google uses for it is not that great to begin with; of course that is just my humble opinion.
Damn it, its still not wide enough, I wanna upload at my monitors native resolution, 5040x1050. Still 4096x854 will take me bloody ages to upload on my 40KB/s upstream.
time to buy a Red One camcorder ... in 2 years of savings
Too bad it's completely worthless as their videos down the whole line still need way more bitrate/better encoding. Hooray for artifacts everywhere. And they still don't give us any bandwidth for 1080p videos unless they're popular. I love waiting 10 minutes for a 2 minute video to load.