High-Quality YouTube Videos Coming Soon

writes with the news that YouTube's co-founder Steve Chen has announced are in the works for the popular site. He spoke today at the event discussing the challenges facing the project and when we can expect to see less grainy social videos. "The need to modify the video before it starts playing will change the experience. Hence the experiment 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 place until now. Chen told me he expects that high-quality YouTube videos ordain 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 help much." I convey honestly stage6 has been doing this for a while. Not to mention on re-create6 there is no coat requirements plus they are not so crazy on the procure stuff. IMO youtube has gone downhill a bit. Seems desire more often than not a link 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 broach with the artifacts from scaled up video. Just give us the bigger window as used by Google 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 ordain never be "high quality video"... I convey how many inane video communicate rants does the world need? How many crappy video editor projects capitalizing on some weak meme repeating the gag (with/without stutter 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 place offered better quality. And the people running other sites had to deal with the fact that the circumscribe partners that understood youtube would ship them youtube quality videos regardless of the site in question now if only youtube would let you transfer mp3's directly like [imeem com] they might get me insterested. The big question is will you need to pay to share your videos at higher quality or will that be free? Also are they talking about a higher resolution and higher data rate or just higher data rate? 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 transfer videos to both YouTube and Vuze since with Vuze you have to install the torrent client etc. The upside is full HD videos. I sight it very interesting to note that the videos you upload are stored in the original format. A lot of people 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 have to re-up some stuff if they end to impel the resolution higher than that. See [videohelp com] for a command and [youtube com] for an example. For a really extreme example that demonstrates how terribly inefficient the radiate H.263 decoder is see [youtube com]. Its quite possible already. Of cover on a serious note. I accept the ability to transfer 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 found come the crime scene trying to walk home. Upon being arrested by ICANN the man was heard screaming "but YOU TUBE! YOU TUBE! I KNOW YOU TUBE!" "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 help much"I would evaluate a lot of this has to do with the fact that it's a pretty common cozen to get decent quality with the existing youtube. resize your video to 320x240 at the highest bitrate that will keep you below 100 megs. The logic is if you reduce the be of reprocessing that's necessary fewer artifacts appear. For the majority of videos that I watch anyway. I'm not concerned about video quality (unless it's unbearably bad). YouTube started because people wanted to share their independently made videos. With the recent news of Opera/other high-profile media stars more blingbling style stuff etc.. it seems YT is losing comprehend of what their community built them up to be. Higher sound quality wouldn't be that hard to apply: Vorbis can get very near transparency at 80 kbps and 60 kbps Vorbis isn't bad. For people who check music-type stuff on Youtube and compassionate about things sounding nice a better audio stream would be a accept dress. I was going to make a crack - desire everyone else - about how there is comfort not "high quality" video (circumscribe) on YouTube. But then I thought if the technology is put in displace someone will eventually fill the void. 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 like frame-accurate editing. 3D animation etc. In about 1996 I participated in a consumer survey on video products. They assort I was with kept looking at me funny because I wanted frame-accurate hold back 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 send that I would have 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 hold back. 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 come the same aim of quality - on consumer (!) equipment - in the mid-90s. Once the technology is in place circumscribe will eventually be created to alter the void. We just have to furnish it more time. . if this means they ordain be sending substantially more data. You know we wouldn't want to cause to be perceived Comcast's poor fragile overworked network would we. Snookums?Fascinating. Your ISP complaing necause you are USING the bandwidth they SOLD to you. Sorry it's easy to rant about this change surface if it is pointless. And I'm not change surface a Comcast customer. Guess I want my ISP (Cox) to forbid this in the future... So what's the procedure for uploading now? I bequeath it used to be something along the lines of...1.) transfer your video.2.) Wait 30 minutes for a person to record your video to VHS piss on it drop impel it reassemble it and reupload it.3.) ..4.) Profit?But seriously. I can't stand 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..[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/16/1952255&from=rss

0 Comments:

No comments have been posted yet!

From:   Website: Subject:   Code: Message: