YouTube supports now Videos with a Resolution of 4.096 x 3.072 Pixel ... more through the Link http://translate.google.de/...
You need a 25 foot tv for this to be effective. Where do i buy one?
given the resolution wouldn't this imply this was for spanning multi-display setups?
You guys need to think outside of the (console) box, PC's baby!
You told me you only have a laptop what PC are you talking about? Your laptop can't even handle MapleStory.
"Your laptop can't even handle MapleStory" How fucking sad is that? Lmao
I'd rather have them increase the limit from 10 minutes to 15 minutes.
I don't know how it's done, but I've seen videos from Youtube of 25-30 mins such as http://www.youtube.com/watc... So it IS doable somehow.
You have to have a director's account from 2006 or earlier to post long videos, I think. Longest video I've seen (well, not seen, just aware of how long it is) is over 4 hrs long.
I think having a partnership with Youtube lets you break the 10 minute limit.
that sounds like its gonna cost alot
Its not just that, bitrate is more important. Youtube's 1080p looks decent but still clearly has macroblocking and the performance is pretty poor. Not even close to a Bluray naturally. Its ok saying you support a resolution like that but when you dont support a good encoder with high bitrates it'll look pants
exactly, they barely give a good enough bitrate to support halfway decent 1080p, they damn sure aren't going to have the bitrate to support 8 times that many pixels without it looking like crap.
you also have to take into account how close you are to the tv/monitor but still I downloaded a sample 4k video before and it was a slideshow on my computer but those videos had incredibly high bitrates while youtube will probably have some shitty standard edit: youtube 4k videos run fine on my computer. must be their constant use of shitty low bitrates but it looks better than the 1080p videos but still a little blurry
visit google, then NHK/BBC's work on Super Hivision, which is much more detailed than simple 4K, they have mentioned consumer versions of SHV for the home with really tiny dot pitch, meaning the quality would be ridiculous, but the screen doesn't have to be bigger than current 100" monsters. example: http://www.engadget.com/201... there's no reason for 4K on small screens, but there's no need to blow your budget on some massive screen when 60-100 inch is plenty.
yea, whats the point? wasnt there an article on n4g where it was stating that most ppls eyes cant tell the difference between 720p and 1080p cause the average monitor isnt big enough to make the difference significant? EDIT: i mean i might be wrong on that, but i could have sworn thats what i read/heard
yeah i remeber readign something like that a while ago
well on my new syncmaster 24'' i can sure tell diffrence when watching 720p blu rays or 1080p ones. sounds like bs article you read becuase i dont know any one that cant tell diffrence between 1080p or 720p unless there standing to far from monitor/tv
People who are not use to HD cant tell the difference since they see both and they probably go wow this looks good at both but anyone like myself who uses HD as a norm can EASILY tell the difference between 720p/1080i/1080p on any monitor whether its 17in or 50++.
do you stare at the monitor to know it HD or not, or Do you just see it say 720p/1080p to know?
Don't know anything about the article but it comes down to the ratio between the screen size AND the viewing distance.
It's easy to see for yourself. Take your computer screen and change the resolution between 1280x720 and 1920x1080.
Not really the same thing. As computers also downsize objects on the screen. Don't get me wrong, there is a noticable difference despite what some "I want to make a name for myself" journalist says, but Windows, Linux, MAC screen size options are not really the best ways to compare the fidelity of resultions because those object size changes distort the impression you get. Just playing Blu-Ray will do the job nicely, characters on the screen remain the same size but ask somebody to sit 2 foot in front of the 40" inch screen and ask them again if there really is nho difference. :) Also, and completely off topic.... SAVE PAUL! BAN FISHING! SAVE PAUL! ROFL!
I should have included, look at a very large photo (at least 1920x1080 size) 100% at both resolutions. Obviously looking at your web browser or desktop won't make much of a difference. It's the fact that you can cram more detail/pixels into any given surface area that makes the image more crisp with detail.
nice job youtube (Y)
It's a nice addition to their services, but really how many people will use it?
A handful of RED users who don't mind that the insanely low Youtube bit rate slaughters their videos. 4K is a niche format, pretty useless for something like Youtube.
I would much rather have support for more than 30 fps again. (It did before)
yeah seriously. There's actually some 60 fps test videos on youtube (I don't know how they got them on there) but it's definitely possible.
As far as I know, they are all old and it's not possible anymore.
I rarely even use 720p. Internet technology needs to keep up with hardware technology.