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

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#31

Post by dylan604 »

LocalH wrote: post #29
dylan604 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#32

Post by deepsun »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #27
HPsquared wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#33

Post by recursive »

echoangle wrote: post #24
throw0101d wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Something else going on? Mysterious. I think people just care about and pay attention to different things. I don't think I've ever cared about this resolution difference in video. I prefer greater frame rates though.

Yes, my vision tests are fine.

On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things.

Video resolution though? Never cared.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#34

Post by Dylan16807 »

bithammerthunde wrote: post #18

Is this in anyway related to the 403 issue with yt-dlp that's been happening for at least a week?

Are you asking if youtube having different formats is making yt-dlp break? If that's your question, the answer is no. If you're asking something else, please explain the question better.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#35

Post by throw0101d »

echoangle wrote: post #24
throw0101d wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size.

If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there.

But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#36

Post by pxoe »

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…

Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto.

One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.

Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#37

Post by ErroneousBosh »

deepsun wrote: post #32
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.

There is absolutely no reason for any sane video editing software to be able to read VFR files.

It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#38

Post by pxoe »

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.

40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#39

Post by gear54rus »

dopa42365 wrote: post #10
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…

>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.

Finally found the person who was the target audience for garbage consoles claiming 30fps gaming is the norm. That makes one. :D

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#40

Post by edgineer »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #28
kccqzy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

It takes twice the file size to double the framerate without reducing visual quality of the original frames, whenever I try, with HEVC, AV1, etc. I can take a lower framerate video, run some software of constant size to interpolate the frames, and play back at a higher rate, but in practice I can't save that higher framerate video to a new mp4 file with small or constant size increase. It's got to be about linear.
Post reply on HN