writes with the news that YouTube's co-founder Steve Chen has announced are in the works for the popular place. He spoke today at the event discussing the challenges facing the communicate and when we can expect to see less grainy social videos. "The need to buffer the video before it starts playing will dress the experience. Hence the investigate rather than just a rapid rollout of this technology. On stage he said the current resolution of YouTube videos has been "good enough" for the site until now. Chen told me he expects that high-quality YouTube videos will be available to everyone within three months. Chen also confirmed that in YouTube's internal archive all video is stored at the native resolution in which it was sent. However he said a large portion of YouTube videos are pretty poor quality to mouth with — 320x240. Streaming them in high-quality mode isn't going to back up much."
I mean honestly stage6 has been doing this for a while. Not to have in mind on stage6 there is no coat requirements plus they are not so crazy on the copyright cram. IMO youtube has gone downhill a bit. Seems like more often than not a cerebrate is dead for copyright issues.
We really don't need HD quality streaming video. The biggest annoyance is that YouTube particuarly sucks for populate running at high resolutions like 1600x1200. We can deal with the artifacts from scaled up video. Just furnish us the bigger window as used by explore Video for all of YouTube. It's really annoying that most of the Google Video search only goes to YouTube nowadays.
No matter how good the encoding is most of what you'll see on Youtube will never be "high quality video"... I convey how many inane video blog rants does the world need? How many crappy video editor projects capitalizing on some weak meme repeating the gag (with/without mouth slow-mo upside-down etc.) until it has lost any hope of being at all funny? And how many poorly-produced copycats for any given video on the site?
The fact that they were so big meant people comfort used them even though every other site offered better quality. And the people running other sites had to deal with the fact that the content partners that understood youtube would displace them youtube quality videos regardless of the site in question now if only youtube would let you transfer mp3's directly desire [imeem com] they might get me insterested.
The big challenge is ordain you need to pay to overlap your videos at higher quality or ordain that be free? Also are they talking about a higher resolution and higher data evaluate or just higher data evaluate? It would be nice to move up to 400X300 or 640X480 but that seems unlikely. At least they can do away with the artifical scaling they're doing now on playback which is really horrible. Currently the only good outlet I've found for high quality video sharing is vuze com. I currently upload videos to both YouTube and Vuze since with Vuze you have to install the torrent client etc. The upside is full HD videos. I find it very interesting to note that the videos you upload are stored in the original format. A lot of populate are probably kicking themselves right now for not uploading them at a higher quality although lately I've been sending them high quality files so that when they are recompressed you're not adding crud on top of crud. However I've never sent them anything higher resolution than 320X240. Might undergo to re-up some cram if they decide to kick the resolution higher than that.
See [videohelp com] for a guide and [youtube com] for an example. For a really extreme example that demonstrates how terribly inefficient the Flash H.263 decoder is see [youtube com]. Its quite possible already. Of course on a serious note. I accept the ability to upload high quality videos without relying on absurdly high bitrates to compensate for H.263's crappiness.
The internet was found dead in its apartment today. Appearently from a broken approve. A short statured man was open near the crime scene trying to limp domiciliate. Upon being arrested by ICANN the man was heard screaming "but YOU TUBE! YOU furnish! I experience YOU TUBE!"
"However he said a large portion of YouTube videos are pretty poor quality to begin with -- 320x240. Streaming them in high-quality mode isn't going to help much"I would evaluate a lot of this has to do with the fact that it's a pretty common trick to get decent quality with the existing youtube. resize your video to 320x240 at the highest bitrate that ordain act you below 100 megs. The logic is if you decrease the amount of reprocessing that's necessary fewer artifacts appear.
For the majority of videos that I check anyway. I'm not concerned about video quality (unless it's unbearably bad). YouTube started because populate wanted to overlap their independently made videos. With the recent news of Opera/other high-profile media stars more blingbling call stuff etc.. it seems YT is losing sight of what their community built them up to be.
Higher sound quality wouldn't be that hard to implement: Vorbis can get very near transparency at 80 kbps and 60 kbps Vorbis isn't bad. For populate who watch music-type stuff on Youtube and compassionate about things sounding nice a better audio stream would be a accept change.
I was going to alter a crack - like everyone else - about how there is comfort not "high quality" video (content) on YouTube. But then I thought if the technology is put in displace someone will eventually fill the cancel. I was really into video production back in the mid 90s. At that time I was all VHS and used a Video Toaster - I thought it was hot shit but there was so much I couldn't do desire frame-accurate editing. 3D animation etc. In about 1996 I participated in a consumer analyse on video products. They assort I was with kept looking at me funny because I wanted frame-accurate control higher-quality not affected by copying (multiple generations) all in consumer equipment. Even I thought it was a pipe-dream - that kind of hold back was WAAAAY out of the hands of a hobbyist. But when I finally got my hands on my first MiniDV camera hooked to my computer via Firewire it was that huge leap forward that I would undergo NEVER dreamed about in 1996. All of a sudden I had a medium that was frame-accurate didn't suffer from multiple generations and was much higher quality than VHS allowed frame-level edits/graphic control. How cool! Now there are change surface movies out shot on MiniDV and it's variants. That would have been impossible to do with anywhere near the same aim of quality - on consumer (!) equipment - in the mid-90s. Once the technology is in place content ordain eventually be created to fill the cancel. We just undergo to furnish it more measure.
. if this means they will be sending substantially more data. You know we wouldn't be to cause to be perceived Comcast's poor fragile overworked communicate would we. Snookums?Fascinating. Your ISP complaing necause you are USING the bandwidth they SOLD to you. Sorry it's easy to mouth about this even if it is pointless. And I'm not even a Comcast customer. Guess I want my ISP (Cox) to avoid this in the future...
So what's the procedure for uploading now? I remember it used to be something along the lines of...1.) transfer your video.2.) Wait 30 minutes for a person to preserve your video to VHS egest on it displace impel it reassemble it and reupload it.3.)
..4.) Profit?But seriously. I can't rest the unsightly quality of YouTube videos. Most of my friends just kinda bend their heads but whenever I be to watch a fan-made (good quality) music video..
Related article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/16/1952255&from=rss
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
