8k youtube - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: grifftech
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 07:11:15 pm
content: I watched part of a video in 8k 60fps, and in the first 35 seconds it dropped 928/1841 frames.

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 07:23:53 pm
content: 350/900 (rounded values)But it drops frames when I click pause, drops during loading... It's unwatchable.I'm not sure what's the point of 8k at this point, other than 'just for fun', or maybe just for benchmarks or advertising purposes of new devices.Ah, possibly preparing for virtual reality devices, they really need a high resolution.8k might work on GPUs that are optimized for 8k, but even then, 8k monitors, connection speeds, HTML 5 are all an issue.I doubt that HTML 5 rendering is well suited for 8k.That said, the 30 frames version is completely watchable using an external player capable of YouTube playback (60 frames doesn't even work). Does it look great on an 1080p monitor? It looks sharp, but aliased. I'm sure that a quality encoded 1080p video could look better.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 07:46:57 pm
content: I have enjoyed this video about PERU a lot, since I visited most of those places in 2014What a country!And as an engineer I am not able to explain some of the ancient stuff

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 08:15:21 pm
content: I achieved zero dropped frames.CPU usage was about 25% of a single core (24C/48T dual Xeon E5-2696v2).GPU was only active on one card at 80 to 95% video engine load (machine has 2 x GTX 1070 in SLI, but performance balanced for cryptocurrency).

author: nidlaX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 08:52:36 pm
content: If you have a video card that handles hardware decoding of VP9, then you should in theory have no trouble playing back 4K, or even 8K files on YouTube.Your browser, on the other hand, can completely spoil it for you if it does not support the right hardware acceleration. On Windows 10, I find that Edge will reliably playback videos with hardware accelerated decoding, whereas Chrome will sometimes struggle.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 09:03:23 pm
content: And here I am only now contemplating moving to 4K 30fps

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 09:46:01 pm
content: Do you have one of these?https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1324922-REG/dell_up3218k_ultrasharp_32_ultra.htmlOtherwise, not sure how you can watch it in 8K.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 09:55:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 01, 2017, 09:03:23 pmDon't forget some of us are on Australia's new National Broadband Network, so we can barely manage 1080P.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 10:02:05 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on November 01, 2017, 09:55:52 pmA 4k source should give you a better quality 1080p image

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 10:23:07 pm
content: The recent video cards - Polaris series from AMD (the ones with RX in name) and the Pascal series from nVidia (GTX 1xxx ) - have hardware decoders which can decode the videos completely on the video card without using the processor on your computer.Youtube uses two codecs to encode their videos : VP9 and h264 for backwards compatibility. For 4K and higher, it mostly uses VP9 to encode videos which requires more processing power to decode.Even these video cards have some limitations.The Pascal cards I think can decode 8K h264 content completely in hardware but VP9 is limited to 4K (later edit: it could be 8K on higher end cards like GTX1070 or GTX 1080 i admit i didn't keep up with various versions of cards) . So the 8K may be decoded only using your processor.The Polaris (AMD) cards can decode 4K h264 content completely in hardware and maybe 8K, I'm not sure.VP9 is not decoded 100% in hardware, it's a sort of hybrid decoding, some decoding is done on the video card and some on the processor. 8K I think it's decoded strictly using the processor in the computer but I may be wrong.I have a RX 470... I just tested with a 4K video and at least on Firefox, 4K VP9 is decoded strictly using cpu, with my old FX-8320 it stays at around 30 to 45% of processor and I get no dropped frames. Same with Opera, I see 0% gpu usage and 20 to 30% cpu usage (probably some cpu usage was other tabs in Firefox). Maybe Chrome uses hybrid decoding if you enable it from settings, or maybe hybrid decoding is only supported in Windows 10 ... I have Windows 7 and don't want to install Windows 10.I can understand that 8K would not play smoothly since it's 4 times the amount of pixels on screen, so the cpu would probably be at 100% all the time.Newer processors like let's say a six core or eight core Ryzen processor could probably decode 8K VP9 using the processor without dropped frames.8K h264 is easier to decode using the processor, my FX-8320 can mostly handle it (has some dropped frames from time to time but not unwatchable)// also these modern cards can also do 4K 60 fps 10bit HEVC in hardware but Youtube and others don't support it because it costs money in licensing and there's no decoders in browsers.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 10:28:04 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 01, 2017, 10:02:05 pmI know, I was just pointing out that our FTTN connections suck ;-)

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 10:44:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 01, 2017, 10:02:05 pmYes, when watching 4k on 1080p monitor you do get a better image because YouTube then allows for a higher bitrate.But if you can only watch the 1080p quality setting for whatever reason (connection, mobile device, etc) will the quality be the same as if the source was uploaded at 1080p, worse, or better?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 01, 2017, 11:45:04 pm
content: Quote from: kalel on November 01, 2017, 10:44:14 pmPeople say it's better due to how Youtube handles the internal renders.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 12:48:33 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 02, 2017, 12:36:42 amFor stuff like teardowns, 4K would be handy for seeing detail.Anyway, Sony have a new camera coming out in December that I like that does 4K 30fps or 1080P up to 120fps

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 12:54:26 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 02, 2017, 12:36:42 amIt depends a lot on the material. Fast moving stuff benefits from 60fps, and you can't see that much detail, so 4k isn't much of a win. Slow moving stuff looks similar at 30fps and 60fps, but 4k resolution really shines. For a lot of material the biggest benefit of the latest 4k + HDR (high dynamic range) TVs is the HDR part. HDR doesn't add much to indoor scenes, but it really improves a lot of outdoor stuff.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 12:58:13 am
content: For the type of content Dave shoots, I'd choose 4K (or the highest possible resolution). That way the master recordings can be archived in the higher resolution and released later if the need arises. It's also useful for taking stills from video.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 01:18:40 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on November 02, 2017, 12:36:42 amIt depends on the content. One of my pet peeves is people (and marketers) pushing so hard on 4K and completely ignoring 60 fps; when most of us have 1080p60 monitors and a lot of content (sports, dancing) benefitsVASTLYmore from 60fps than 4K (not to mention a large amount of "4K" footage being taken by optics and camera operators that aren't capable of delivering 4K worth of sharpness, while 60fps doesn't require any special operator skill or optical quality)

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 02:02:53 am
content: Speaking of 60fps... I have a few BLUERAY Hollywood movies that are encoded in what I assume is 60fps, and when they are played on the TV the movies appear too "sharp" and "video-like" instead of looking like movies. Something is lost... I can't tell what exactly, but my brain can tell and it looks too real and therefore almost "fake" (almost counter-intuitive). Can anyone put into words what exactly is happening when we watch these Hollywood movies at 60 fps and why they start taking on a "video" like quality and lose the "movie" quality?Is it something to do with motion blur, and at 60 fps the movie has no blur at all? Or does the 30fps version introduce motion blur somehow when they are converting the movie over? I am assuming movies are all shot digitally these days at 60fps anyways and then "down-scaled" to 30fps but introducing motion blur digitally?[EDIT: Added comment..... It takes me in to the "uncanny valley" sort of feeling]

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 02:19:45 am
content: It's probably just your brain saying "this does not look like a movie". Most people can see a noticeable difference between 60 fps and the 24/25/30 fps they are used to.

author: nidlaX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 02:31:27 am
content: When you select a playback resolution higher than your viewport, you might be trading better bitrate with fewer motion artifacts for worse resolution due to a fast downsampling algorithm. Just take a look at how the 8K video looks when it's embedded and not fullscreen.

author: Jim Kwik
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 03:26:15 am
content: While I turn to the 4320P, my Google Chrome got stuck.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 06:05:55 am
content: Quote from: nidlaX on November 01, 2017, 08:52:36 pmI find exactly the same, FWIW, which is somewhat bizarre as I’d have thought Google would be chomping at the bit to get Chrome working with Youtube at these higher resolutions. IE nowadays will do upto 1080p60 but that’s it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 06:19:41 am
content: Regarding 4k30 vs 1080p60, I have to say I tend to prefer the buttery smoothness of the higher framerate.What is of value, assuming your source bitrate and quality is good enough, is upsampling higher bitrate 1080p60 to 4k60 and using that, as Youtube limits bandwidth according to resolution. The downside is that rendering times suffer dramatically of course.There’s also a school of though that says shooting wide at 4k allowing you to post process framing and add effects like panning, zooming and multi-camera despite there being only a single source. All of that sounds too much like hard work to me though!I’m somewhat surprised at the slowness of reasonably priced 4k60 sources to become available. There are a couple of action cams now but they’re useless for indoor use and close ups. The Panasonic GH5 is the only decent game in town sub $2k, but you can add substantially to that for the right lenses if you’re not already in the micro 4/3 space.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 07:42:30 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 02, 2017, 06:36:21 amThe decoder may be poorly multithreaded or theres some serial stuff which slows down decoding. Your CPU has lots of cores but base frequency of 2.2 ghz and boost at 3.6ghzA Ryzen 6 core or higher will have base frequency at 3.2 ghz or higher .. r5 1400 (4/8) is 3.2 base /3.4 boost , 1500x (4/8) is 3.5/3.7, r5 1600x (6/12) is 3.6/4.0 .. even r7 1700 (8/16) is 3.0/3.7

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 08:01:00 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 02, 2017, 06:36:21 amIn my earlier post, using Edge, my CPU was around 25% ofone coreon a 24C/48T dual E5-2696v2, so process CPU utilisation across the entire core footprint was just 1% on that 8K Youtube source.I would add that I have a lot more success with Edge than I do with Chrome on 4K Youtube. At least I've found a use for Edge.I did find some occasional bandwidth throttling going on somewhere upstream. Sometimes there seemed to be a 20Mbps or so limit on the streaming rate, which would come and go over the period of several minutes, with the local bandwidth still showing well over 220Mbps. This led to inevitable stutters, but didn't dramatically add to measured dropped frames, so I'd suggest it's mostly measure of frames lost to video processing limitations rather than bandwidth limitation.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 08:05:28 am
content: Strange playback on i7 6700HQ here. It can play smoothly, but only for a short while until it starts to 'buffer' and freeze the image. It then fast forwards a few seconds, plays a few frames,etc.747/1384 frames playedIt's a very strange buffering issue, since I got a Gigabit up/down connection.CPU was almost at 100% in Chrome, Manjaro Linux, NVIDIA Quadro M1000M although I doubt with Linux drivers ecosystem that card isn't doing much at all.4K on YT has the advantage that a higher bitrate is processed internally until the final output renders are made, or so goes the rumor.Still then, I think 4K is still very much a niche for media consumption. I got a 50" 4K TV with a dead pixel, but it's not visible with my eyes at a little bit above 1 meter. I sit 2 meters from the TV, and can't distinguish between 1080p and 4K content.So then only the higher bitrate could be an advantage to getting a less compressed 1080p image.Interestingly, LinusTechTips has a few videos documenting their 8K RED camera's, which is total overkill for YT and way overpriced eco system. Anyway, they say rendering 8K output is not the point, but with such high resolution you can re-frame, digitally stabilize, and zoom into video's with no appreciable loss in quality (up to a limit). Perhaps the same could be applied to 4K > 1080pBut losing 50/60fps is a great pain.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 09:38:04 am
content: I don't pretend to understand LTT's business model, but he seems to be able to fund a small army of individuals doing his video production, probably essential if you consider the sheer volume of his organisation's output, and that he seems to put a lot of emphasis on thetechnicalproduction quality.Now whether the RED cameras add enough value to justify themselves, certainly not. However bearing in mind the airplay he's given them I'd imagine he's not paying rack rate for these, nor pretty much everything his channels review.A lot of channels have moved to the Panasonic Lumix GH5 which seems like a reasonable compromise for the price. There has been a lot of noise around the auto-focus system used in the GH5, although apart from for those doing daily vlogging diaries, most semi-serious content producers would be using a manual focus with the camera's built in tools such as focus peaking.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 01:32:31 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on November 02, 2017, 09:38:04 amFor a channel like mine were a single video can have up to 100 or more clips, with dozens of different angles and focus distances, manually focusing would be a nightmare and productivity killer.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:02:51 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 02, 2017, 01:32:31 pmUnderstood, although it's not actually that hard. It is a little frustrating not to be able to trust it though. As mentioned, at least there are tools such as peaking on camera. I use the one off auto focus at the start of a shot and if it's peaked I leave it. It's quite a complex and configurable system, and that is at least part of the problem. It's bloody frustrating when you thought something was in focus, take some footage, and then realise in post it wasn't. In 4k, it's all the more noticeable too.FWIW, Canon and Sony seem to have auto focus nailed, I assume the reason others don't use similar technologies is IP infringement.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 09:38:33 pm
content: A couple more data points.A Ryzen 1800X at 4GHz with a GTX1080, 2% CPU utilisation (33% on a single thread), and the graphics card was at a pretty solid 85%. Zero frame drops, but still trouble on occasion with the stream itself. I also found it seemed to stutter even without any buffering going on.i7-7700K at 5GHz, 9% CPU, no external GPU, 24% GPU load, zero frame drops, no problem streaming, consistent and just beautiful, by far the best experience (see pic attached).All my tests were on the same flat LAN subnet though the same routers.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 02:32:04 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on November 02, 2017, 04:02:51 pmThat's not the point.It's also not hard to level the audio in every clip either, but only a fool would design their workflow so they had to do that.Same thing with focusing, it might be easy, but it's an extra step in the workflow, and when you have to do it dozens of times per shoot, over hundreds of videos, that adds up to a lot of dicking around. And dicking around = annoyance, and annoyance leads to ultimatle frustration and reduced happiness. And allfor no benefitwhen you can just get a proper camera with a decent autofocus.When you produce content every day then you get to realise that the little stuff matters.Example: everyone told me to try Adobe for video editing, so I tried it. Found I had to do an extra couple of mouse clicksfor every clipin my timeline. Hundreds of extra clicks per video compared to my current workflow, screw that, no thanks, so I ditched it.QuoteIt's bloody frustrating when you use manual focus and you forgot to set it in your haste to get a video finished and only find at editing that your content is unusable.Leaving a camera on autofocus takes away that problem, no need to think and get it set right every time.I'll use manual focus for some thing likes the whiteboard, so no risk of focus hunting, but on most other things autofocus (with peaking) is the bomb.