Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Format IDs

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#21

Post by quirino »

noir_lord wrote: post #6
throw0101d wrote: post #4

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…

Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.

I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games.

Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#22

Post by OGWhales »

kccqzy wrote: post #15
mrob wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".

I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.

Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube.

The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#23

Post by echoangle »

throw0101d wrote: post #4

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…

How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? The frames should be highly correlated and as long as you only add p-frames, the data needed should be pretty small, no?

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#24

Post by echoangle »

throw0101d wrote: post #14
dopa42365 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.

> Yes. Every single one. It's that simple. I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.

If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#25

Post by ErroneousBosh »

throw0101d wrote: post #4

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…

> monthly (mobile) data caps

Are we back in the early 2000s or something?

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#26

Post by eviks »

throw0101d wrote: post #4

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…

Any cases are like that because it looks more natural and fluid, but it's just not for you, though in that case how would cases help change your stylistic preferences?

I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#27

Post by ErroneousBosh »

HPsquared wrote: post #17
throw0101d wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't watch too many of those, and those few that I do are more 4X (Civ, Stellaris, etc ), so that maybe that's why I don't notice it as an advantage for most of the content I see.

If there isn't much movement, it's probably a modest increase in bitrate anyway as the codec will see that most frames aren't changing.

At that, captured video of these things can be a total pain in the hoop to edit because OBS, Gamebar et al will write them as variable framerate files, only writing a frame with a suitably distant presentation timestamp when something changes.

And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#28

Post by ErroneousBosh »

kccqzy wrote: post #15
mrob wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".

I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.

The neat thing is that 25fps content played out at 50fps doesn't use a lot more bandwidth than 25fps played out at 25fps because it only has to update every second frame, assuming identical noise between frames.

And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder".

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#29

Post by LocalH »

dylan604 wrote: post #8
throw0101d wrote: post #4

> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries. Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content? (Note: in the table it's about support for…

Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic. For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wa…

12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#30

Post by dietr1ch »

quirino wrote: post #21
noir_lord wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.

I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games. Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.

Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen.

I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.

Post reply on HN