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

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#51

Post by OGWhales »

kccqzy wrote: post #41
OGWhales wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right. And if a person knows they are shooting at 24fps they will take greater care to ensure they won’t pan too quickly. Panning too quickly is just bad video, whichever fps you choose.

“Too quickly” is still quite slow, you can do a lot more comfortably at higher fps and it looks just fine. Also, I’m assuming you only mean movies and similar videos, not the other kinds of videos I mentioned?

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#52

Post by shric »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #25
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?

There are only 5-10 countries in the world that I know of that don’t have mobile data caps. The vast majority of the HN demographic do not live in those countries.

The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#53

Post by bigstrat2003 »

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.

No, not very many people would say that. Console games for many years were 30 FPS tops, and people were just fine with it. It's only a small but vocal minority that insists on 60 FPS as some kind of minimum.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#54

Post by bigstrat2003 »

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.

There is not one single video I've seen where it's better at 60 FPS, so I dispute your assertion. I actually find 60 FPS videos to be kind of bizarre and unpleasant to watch.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#55

Post by dave7 »

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?

I updated to yt-dlp nightly and that fixed it for me, was a few days back now so idk if there's been further disruption:

yt-dlp --update-to nightly

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#56

Post by zahlman »

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.

Especially retro console games, where sprites might flicker at 60Hz (either to create an illusion of translucency or because of hardware limits on simultaneous sprites displayed); viewing footage at 30fps can end up catching all the "off" frames and make screen elements disappear completely.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#57

Post by nomel »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #53
quirino wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, not very many people would say that. Console games for many years were 30 FPS tops, and people were just fine with it. It's only a small but vocal minority that insists on 60 FPS as some kind of minimum.

> and people were just fine with it.

They didn't have a choice. It was literally "be fine with it" or "don't play most games". Console players complain now if a game only runs 30fps, because you can't really go back. It's just not possible to play some genres at 30fps.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#58

Post by sebmellen »

dietr1ch wrote: post #30
quirino wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cinematic obsession with 24 FPS is so stupid…

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#59

Post by Balooga »

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.

Are you joking? Most people don't notice a difference between 480i and 1080p when blown up on a large TV in their living room. I know this from experience having worked at a satellite TV provider and hearing actual customer feedback.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#60

Post by jasomill »

gucci-on-fleek wrote: post #50
maccard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.

> Most displays are 60Hz This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled. [0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699 [1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFra…

But not of 23.976 or 29.97, alas.
Post reply on HN