YouTube begins streaming 1080p insecurities next week (update: 1080p video!)

Ready to have your imperfect complexions scrutinized by every anonymous coward on the Internet? You'd better 'cause YouTube has announced the move from 720p to 1080p video streaming to make use of those cheap, Full HD camcorders flooding the market. Now puff up that keyboard courage -- the ruthless bashing of your peers is set to begin next week.

Update: 1080p sample video posted after the break.

[Naoki7 Posted Nov 13th 2009 12:50PM]

That's a lot of P!

[GuyWithDogs Posted Nov 13th 2009 2:39PM]

How long will the uploads take?

[CBXweb Posted Nov 13th 2009 2:52PM]

So strange. It plays great on here, but if I play it on the actual Youtube page, system resources become low. :/

[Zmathue Posted Nov 13th 2009 2:57PM]

I cant seem to get the dog one linked in the article to show in 1080p + this looks cooler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI&fmt=37

[Anticrawl Posted Nov 13th 2009 4:27PM]

Damn I'm not sure what you kids are doing wrong but running the flash video at 1080p only eats up about 8% of CPU usage max. Perhaps ya'll know nothing of optimazation....

[(Unverified) Posted Nov 13th 2009 5:14PM]

You missed some!

[(Unverified) Posted Nov 13th 2009 6:00PM]

I'm still a bit stumped at why there are no storage caps on video, but there are caps on email and pictures. Yet, video consumes far more storage then either of the other two.

[atomandroid Posted Nov 13th 2009 6:44PM]

I don't install Flash natively on my production machines since it is so insecure and unstable. I use Windows Virtual PC to RDP to a virtual machine with Flash... so 1080p is pointless. The virtual machine can't output the 1080p at full size.

Now if YouTube used Silverlight instead... then I could watch in fullHD.

[ajoan0077 Posted Nov 14th 2009 12:51AM]

That dog is like "wtf are you doing?"

[Demache Posted Nov 14th 2009 2:26AM]

My 3 year old laptop seems to be handling the videos fairly well. No stuttering yet....

[mad102190 Posted Nov 14th 2009 5:19AM]

At first i was like "AWESOME!" then i read thru a couple comments about flash usage and decided to see if flash used 32% of my cpu as well. I was like 32% thats ridicuous! then i saw something that truly scares me... (view screenshot)

http://grab.by/grabs/7780db2a217457986e62c81e423ba00a.png

what am i gonna do???? F U youtube!

[Kamianek Posted Nov 14th 2009 2:02PM]

Go Youtube! Go Youtube! :)

[(Unverified) Posted Nov 14th 2009 4:57PM]

I think the 480p stream version of http://www.recastdigital.net/DEMO/ is way better then this YouTube 1080p sample. Recast's playback is very smooth in my laptop while the youtube version is not.

[Coyote Posted Nov 15th 2009 12:58PM]

Not bad. < 50% CPU on my cheapo Dell Pentium dual-core, and the quality is good enough I can count fleas.

What's really surprising is how the Nvidia PureVideo HD demo actually uses less CPU power than the dog clip. Better encoding? I'm in Chrome and I think the PureVideo demo was using the native HTML5 stuff. It wasn't flash, that's for sure...

[palsword Posted Nov 15th 2009 2:12PM]

Is this going to make the mac cpu go even crazier? when i ran the video in the update firefox was taking more than 110% of the cpu

[Otakuon Posted Nov 16th 2009 5:05PM]

While this may be "1080p", the bit rate is no where near where it needs to be to provide a high quality image. AVCHD consumer camcorders record at about 24mbps (Blu-Ray is about 40mbps). How many people have a CONSISTENT 24mpbs conneciton at their home? Very few, so this video has to undergo heavy compression or else you would have to wait a long time for the video to buffer. This heavy compression introduces a ton of artifacts which degrade and soften the image. It's a step forward, but untill ISPs can provide faster connections, it will be awhile before streaming video is TRUE HD (which with the monthy caps they want to force on us will never happen).

[psmeraldi Posted Nov 20th 2009 1:11PM]

Here is a video from independent film maker Marco Gandolfo, made with a Canon Eos 7d and visible with the new Youtube 1080p resolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3gCDPhNBU

[(Unverified) Posted Nov 20th 2009 2:18PM]

I'm still thinking that http://www.recastdigital.net/DEMO has a better video quality and playback then the YoutTube 1080p resolution.