YouTube begins streaming 1080p insecurities next week (update: 1080p video!)
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Nov 13th 2009 5:14AM
posted Nov 13th 2009 5:14AM
Update: 1080p sample video posted after the break.
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Freaking awesome!!!!
Bring on the zits! Camera Wh0r35
That picture is a bag of LOL!
INCORRECT.
Freaking awesome would be running the entirety of youtube on silverlight 3 streaming IIS.
This is just somewhat awesome.
@Andy: Wrong, because that would shut out all users of Linux distros.
@Nicholas
Not entirely correct. Though I'm sure it's not perfect, here's an open source implementation of Silver Light.
http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight
I really can't judge, since my monitor at work does 1240x1024
Hmmm Just wondering, people are asking can the computer handle it, I think they're are forgetting that for them to be truly watching HD, they need to be using a HD Monitor and using HDMI cable or something right , right ?
1080P is 1920x1080, so as long as someone has a monitor with at least that resolution, they can watch this video in its native resolution. I'm not sure what that question was....computers were doing "hd" long before TV's.
I would love to see them use the Silverlight Streaming thing even if it was just an option. Flash doesn't run as well as silverlight does. But obviously that would never work because silverlight is a microsoft product.
I don't think it'll be freaking awesome until they start allowing porn on YouTube again. Free 1080p porn would be freaking awesome!
That is one hot bitch (...in the video that is)
Freak'n awesome would be more R rated stuff on Youtube. Still don't see why we can't see a pair of melons every now and then on youtube.
Now all that needs to happen in Australia is for internet to become cheaper so people can afford the required bandwidth to watch this content without the need to wait an hour...
The problem is that even a 1Gb connection at your home won't help if the Youtube servers are too slow for even regular quality videos... (yes, that does happen sometimes)
@ibelike: YouTube is ALWAYS slow on my connection, even though I have a 16 down/3 up mbps connection. Other sites' videos load just fine, even in HD. I can't even imagine 1080P on YouTube. I'll have to click pause and let it load for a couple of days before watching it.
In my market, comcast packet shapes the traffic and makes you toube incredibly slow, basically unusable.. the player times out. so don't feel bad.
comcast isn't so bad, it usually works. im just worried about the bandwidth caps now with this being announced and their teevee service recently announced. : /
@Darwin - it is probably your computer then, not youtube.
I have a 30Mbit connection in Australia (Bigpone cable) and Youtube is horribly slow -- guess you can't blame Google, the costs associated with streaming millions of videos everyday would be a little on the MASSIVE side! :)
YAY! Full 1080p webcam pixelation for all! Seriously though, this will be a nice feature to have. I can't wait for people to be able to count the hairs on my eyebrows when I'm making a 9 minute blog that says so much, but nothing at the same time. I love youtube!!!
That and the jelly video assaulting your eyes. =(
awesome mannnnnnn. full hd video this is sickkkk
If Youtube aquired the capabilities of Hulu free for watch films, it would be fantastic! Hulu only sever US....
Hulu's ridiculous regional restrictions ensures that a thriving community of amateur TV show rippers and redistributers exists worldwide.
oh yea!!! Now my mac will run youtube even choppier!
Youtubes servers are too slow for 1080p, here i had access to a 60mbps connection and it still couldnt load much faster than the video played, and that was in standard definition
All depends on the time of day (how many simultaneous users) and the area you are (what youtube server/route you get), and on your ISP not throttling, because youtube represents a lot of bandwidth so I'm sure some lame-ass ISP's throttle that too yo save a penny.
But anyway, they've had 480/720p for a while now and I can't say I came across that many youtubes in even that format, seems when its HD it's some 'official' thing from the movie studios or the white house and such, and often a boring thing.
What kind of super computer and internet connection do you need to watch a 1080p video?
I was like "AWESOME!"
Then I realized it still used flash, and I was like "Cool, I guess".
I'm hoping the supercomputer needed is one with an atom processor, otherwise it would suck to drag my gaming desktop to the livingroom just for youtube in 1080P
My quad-core machine played the video just fine!
...with ~65% processing power used.
mine did fine on computer with intel D (the first one) 715 ram, 256mb graphics well and Ubuntu... on windows just triple all of those...
@ Backlin
That must be a really weak quad core... 65% usage? My i7 only used around 7% on that video.
I was hitting around 47% on both cores on a Core 2 Duo E4500 @ 2.7 GHz on Windows 7 (using Firefox).
I'm on 117% n a 2.8GHz C2D MBP w/ 4GB RAM
Will it run on my computer?
Its specs are:
1.6Ghz intel atom processor
nvidia ion graphics
1GB of memory
doubt it, as flash isn't powered by GPU but by the CPU, and atom can't handle that. Probably when adobe releases gpu accelerated flash
Now I'm curious - is mine powerful enough?
2.7GHZ Athlon II X2 215 (dual core)
Yes postal dude, but using 90% CPU, but still, it'll work if you don't do much else at the same time.
Thats odd I thought that flash was powered by my GPU considering with my Phenom II x4 940 it only uses 2-3% of power at 720p.
Holy crap!! Just run that 1080p test video on there and it gulps about 32% of my processing power. Adobe really need to do something about this a lot of computers are going to be in some real trouble with this such as the media centres.
I have a core 2 duo 2.4 ghz on my laptop and firefox used 54% processing power for that video.
Mac Pro here (2.66 Quad). It took 12% to play it back.
5 year old Pentium M 1.86 Ghz
96-99% Usage on XP SP3
That being said it played perfectly without any hiccups.
Well it doesn't use my GPU at all, and I have one that's perfectly capable of completely doing the HD thing on its own in DXVA enabled players.
And yes I have the latest flash and drivers, and seeing I know flash doesn't use the GPU much I'm calling you people out on BS'ing.
So I'll join in:
Yeah it plays with 0% CPU while my computer is in standby
Wait, did you guys use the actual 1080p sample AND hit the HD button and expanded to fullscreen?
Yep
if I upload a 1680x1050 video, will youtube re-encode it to 720p? or will it use same resolution?
Go to Delphi. I hear there's an oracle there.
How about Compuserve? Or BIX?
Can you only get the answers with Oracle? Why not MySQL?
The HD option already sends my computer into over drive/stutter mode I can't wait to see what 1080P does maybe I'll have my own personal LHC or perhaps it'll start a small fire to keep me warm during these colder months.
Make sure you'll upload a youtube of the fire :)
Too bad that the low bitrate signal will probably minimize any gains you may get from the bump to 1080p.
1080p doesn't automatically make crappy video better. It's usually just bigger.
this.
i hate how people assume resolution = quality.
Did you look at the test video? Or are you content just bitching without any kind of evidence or reason?
Well OK since you can't be bothered to figure it out because you are busy shating your vast mind, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37
I was wondering why the test video ran so well on my 2mb connection (and why it looked so crummy for that matter). For it to be full HD doesn't it require 24mbps or something similar?
@Wwhat
This video link is the exact reason why I never go to Youtube for inspiration.
Regardless if it is 1080p or not.
@ Wwhat
heres a portion of a screencap from me playing that video fullscreen (my screen is 1680x1050):
http://i36.tinypic.com/v6psvm.png
it may technically 1080p, but it doesn't actually look any better than the 720p stuff i've seen on there.
Keep in mind that that's $200 camileo pocketcam footage
Sometimes normal clips load slowly for me on Youtube. The buffer bar barely moves.
And I'm on a 12 megabit connection.
I can't wait for 1080p...
I'm having the same problem. Takes 30 minutes to load 3 min video..
I'm getting allot more of that too in recent months and I have a 100mbit connection.
Usually, that's the fault of the person who posted the video. Most people who post videos don't know how to properly encode the video, and end up making the file sizes HUGE for a video that is only a few minutes.
I'm really starting to wonder if some ISP's don'\t throttle youtube, somebody should investigate.
For shame Engadget.
You took that "1080P" picture from your QuadHD article last year.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/29/reminder-quad-hd-doesnt-make-everything-look-better/
Well to be fair it's perfectly valid for demonstrating their point. It may have been originally taken from a QuadHD image, but it isn't even nearly that res. Heck, it's only 600×447 so it could easily show off 720p or even progressive DVD quality
P.S. you're not meant to capitalise the p in 1080p
Here is a far more accurate image depicting what the 1080p experience will be like on YouTube:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/1191/ythd.jpg
It's funny because just last night I was trying to determine the WAF of my 720p HD-PVR recordings.
I asked her if she noticed any difference between the SD recordings and the HD ones.
She said: "yeah, they all have bad skin".
Res? You can't handle the Res!
Ballmer, for a second there, I was programmed to sit and wait for your .jpg to finish buffering.
As of late, Youtube can barely stream anything anymore.
The question is, do they want to increase the size/length limit for the regular users?
people around the world with less than 512 kbps internet connection mourns.
Well that's fine, but it won't work worth a darn on a MacBook!!!! Argh...
let's me clarify :The trouble is not the macbook as a hardware but the damn OSX that stink big time for videos (with the exception of those propietary .mov files).
Solution :bootcamp and install windows xp or windows 7.
YouTube is wonderful for the community and service it provides, but they must get rid of flash. The 720P videos stutter like hell. How are the 1080P ones going to fare? Will my computer pause and say "fuck off, you're trying to kill me"?
'Thud'...ISP's CEO's faint worldwide.
This is a good thing, With an increased demand for bandwidth, perhaps their hand will be forced to actually provide?
I'm in Oz on an T1 connection because that's all I can get in my street. FML
Sounds great...Hope they raise the file size limit as well.
This is to 1080p video what cheese in a can is to cheese.
A bastardisation.
I'm neither anonymous nor a coward... which is why 'I' got banned the last 2 times. ;) [ I don't really know if i was banned or if it was a computer g itch, but don't ruin the moment, k? ]
Re the 1080P, I'm ready as long as they are able to deliver. Under load, their servers can't even stream standard without stalling / stuttering let alone hd when i try.
Oh great, Youtube will be even more choppy on a Mac...
Why does Youtube Flash use 100% or more of my brand new Macbook Pro?
HTML5 cannot come fast enough.
It's actually a bit of a mystery to me this one. Flash is very badly optimised, and I had a chat with someone from DivX once who pointed out it's the worst way of displaying video imaginable. Adobe says that it has optimisations for using the GPU in your computer (both PC and Mac) but I've never seen any evidence of it.
Silverlight, on the other hand, seems to handle GPU acceleration properly.
My work computer refuses to play most 720p videos on YouTube, but has no problem with Silverlight.
Flash is used everywhere since it's so good at streaming, unlike what was available when it was getting popular for streaming use.
And DivX is a joke, I'd not take their 'expertise' as any kind of evidence, they don't even support 64bit OS's (or multi-threading), bloody amateurs.
As for the GPU acceleration, I understand it requires the site to specifically code for it, and it's not for accelerating HD video, for that it only use some old stuff as has been used for DVD's for a decade as I understand it.
Not that I'm a fan of flash incidentally, I hate it, it's in fact only good for video, and even there is should be replaced by something, but for christ sake not silverlight, that's MS propriety, and guaranteed to open security holes in anything it's installed on.
@Nicholas
It would shut out any sensible person, so yeah ideal setup for youtube I guess? They could get rid of the few people left on there that can still form a coherent sentence, those are so out of place.
1. My connection's not fast enough for SD youtube videos to buffer appropriately
2. Flash ganks 60% + CPU on both of my cores while playing the sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUM1284TqFc&fmt=37
Meh.
Same for me on my MBP, but in you get the file from the browser cache en rename it too, 'name.mp4' and play it in quicktime the CPU is around 15%.
Really hate flash!
@Nicholas
They could write the application and add it as an option at least. Silverlight is superior to Flash for videos on platforms it supports.
According to steam servery only 10% of people even have a 1080p monitor, im wondering how many people will run 1080p on a non 1080p screen and rant about how good it looks
Do we really need this???
Do you think I can run 1080p on a core duo mac mini with 2gigs of ram?
I know that my mac is kinda ol but that's all I have besides an xbox to do 1080p video through Zune Market place
You probably can't. Because Flash on Macs SUCKS, lol ...
that "video" of the dog is meant to be a series of photographs shown at about 1 a second right!! might have to try it out on my macbook when i get home instead of this crappy work computer!
Looks like Cable companies such as "Comcast" could learn a thing or two here about how to broadcast 1080P? Maybe use a hybrid stream method since the a**holes "can"t figure out how to pump those signals across the lines; bullox.
I don't know what everybody is complaining about, I just ran the video several times and it jumped my CPU usage to 10-15% (topped out at 16%) and didn't change my memory usage one iota.
This one is even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfTFjb8XDS0
That one is very impressive. The detail is definitely more visible on the cat. (cats rool dogs drool)
That's 720p not 1080p
I can only imagine what this will do on a macbook air. And I'm saying this as a mac user so hold your flame.
Well it's not like 720p couldn't reveal so much detail too especially in close up shots!!