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

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#71

Post by account42 »

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.

Console gamers would say that mandatory spankings improved the experience if the marketing told them so.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#72

Post by account42 »

zahlman wrote: post #56
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.

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.

Yes, or in general everything that was originally 30 FPS interlaced should be de-interlaced to 60 FPS progressive video and not 30 FPS.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#73

Post by account42 »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #37
deepsun wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course there is. A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. And mixing two fixed frame rate sources with different framerates would naturally produce a VFR video and with current editing software you need to destroy some of the source information or interpolate some slop to make it work. There is no good reason for editing software to have these limitations either when most players and all modern video containers have caught up and are VFR-first with a fixed frame rate hint in the headers if you're lucky.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#74

Post by account42 »

dylan604 wrote: post #9
throw0101d wrote: post #3

"4320p"? Huh: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution

Just think of multiples of 1080p. 4K => 2160p and is 4x larger than HD. 8K => 4230p and is 16x larger than HD. 1080p of course is the height at the proper 16:9 aspect ratio of 1920 wide image. It just moves up from there keeping the same aspect.

Yes and also "4K" and "8K" can mean different resolutions depending on who you are talking to, e.g. 3840 pixels wide or actually 4000 pixels wide.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#75

Post by kotaKat »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #34
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.

no, I assume they're asking if this is tangically a related post towards the recent effort of yt-dlp 403s; the 403s are happening on specific format IDs because youtube is now starting to block and control access to different format IDs based on cookies, clients, and a few other things to try to limit how you can download videos and audio streams.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#76

Post by dylan604 »

account42 wrote: post #74
dylan604 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just think of multiples of 1080p. 4K => 2160p and is 4x larger than HD. 8K => 4230p and is 16x larger than HD. 1080p of course is the height at the proper 16:9 aspect ratio of 1920 wide image. It just moves up from there keeping the same aspect.

Yes and also "4K" and "8K" can mean different resolutions depending on who you are talking to, e.g. 3840 pixels wide or actually 4000 pixels wide.

3840 keeps the aspect ratio 16:9. 1920 is not 2k. 2048/2000 would be 2k, 4096/4000 would be 4k. That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160. In the film world, it was often referred to as having 2k scans but being delivered HD instead since it was most often scanned to video tape. Not everyone was able to deliver digital files (DPX sequences) at true 2k, and less were able to accept them. So 2k just became interchangeable as HD deliverables in the film/video realm.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#77

Post by account42 »

dylan604 wrote: post #76
account42 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and also "4K" and "8K" can mean different resolutions depending on who you are talking to, e.g. 3840 pixels wide or actually 4000 pixels wide.

3840 keeps the aspect ratio 16:9. 1920 is not 2k. 2048/2000 would be 2k, 4096/4000 would be 4k. That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160. In the film world, it was often referred to as having 2k scans but being delivered HD instead since it was most often scanned to video tape. Not everyone was able to deliver digital files (DPX sequences) at true 2k, and less were able to accept them.…

> That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160.

Display manufacturers, streaming companies and home video distributors all use 4K in their labeling for not truly 4 thousand pixel wide resolutions. As do most random people that talk about the resolution. Yes, the UHD label is often included in a cover-your-ass way but 4K is very much being what 3840x2160 is being called in a lot of places.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#78

Post by everdrive »

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…

People have what you might call a comparison disease. Once something can be compared with something that is "better" in some metric, most people are unable to think about whether or not the "lesser" version is sufficient. All they can think about is that the "better" one exists.

There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#79

Post by echoangle »

Balooga wrote: post #59
echoangle wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are most customers 70 year old? You should get your drivers license revoked if you don’t notice that difference.

Re: YouTube Format IDs

#80

Post by Vedor »

nomel wrote: post #57
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This whole discussion makes me think of the old days, when I had a really outdated computer. I was playing Counter-Strike semi-competitively at around 15 FPS, and I didn’t see anything wrong with it...
Post reply on HN