philscomputerlab wrote:

Would have been easier to capture it at 1920x1080p60 and it would be flawless.

This would mean that I have to reduce my capture resolution just to be in line with limitations imposed by youtube. Maybe this would be the way to go if I would target exclusively youtube as platform. I don't see the flaw in the original capture as it is a 'flawless' 1920x1200p60 capture. The actual flaw is the handling of this content by YT where it not just downgrades the quality but as well the resolution. I don't see why 1920x1200 shouldn't be available as "original size" option.

It's that most people do not have a 16:10 display but 16:9. And if you upload something to YouTube I do believe you got to do your best so that the result will be optimal. That involves working with / around the limitations that YouTube enforces 😒

philscomputerlab wrote:

Yes but that doesn't tell you much to be honest. I could take a 15 fps video, render it in 60 fps and upload it to YT and it will run at 60 fps but still have skips and jerks.

What reason would I have to do that?
Can somebody look at the links posted on last page and let me know what fps shows up in the stats?
Here are the original videos:
Pang - Amiga
Shatterhand
I'll delete the links after 2 weeks or so.

elianda wrote:

The actual flaw is the handling of this content by YT where it not just downgrades the quality but as well the resolution. I don't see why 1920x1200 shouldn't be available as "original size" option.

If your videos aren't too long, make lossless videos and upload them as such. HuffYUV and Lagarith (if your video is in RGB colourspace) are two good lossless codecs to try. Even ZMBV is quite a good codec (which personally I use) for this task, just that it tends to be very slow at large resolutions.

marooned_on_mars wrote:

What reason would I have to do that?

Well in your case you went with a PAL capture of 50 fps and after YouTube encoded it there are little skips and it's not totally smooth. So it's always best to capture 60 fps footage to begin with and avoid frame rate comparisons.

That's what I mean with the frame rate not meaning much.

You can't properly run Amiga PAL games in NTSC mode.

marooned_on_mars wrote:

You can't properly run Amiga PAL games in NTSC mode.

Of course, but then you can't expect it to be totally smooth when displayed on a 60 Hz device. Does that make sense?

The first video sows up as 50 Hz the second one as 60 Hz. But neither are good for testing because the scenes change too fast and have no content that make it easy to follow. A large scrolling banner that scrolls for a while would work well.

In firefox and both the HTML and Flash player, I can only get 30 FPS. Even on videos that claim 60FPS

I doesn't bother me. I don't really see a big difference between 30 and 60 fps. I would prefer the extra
framerate when playing a game but when watching, it doesn't really benefit me.

Also, what is the point of uploading in 4k? Wouldn't it take forever to upload?
And most people have 1920x1080 or lower resolution displays still

I found that IE actually works the best with 60 fps videos 😀

60 fps videos are smoother and more fluid but like you say it's more relevant when you actually play the game.

I see higher resolution displays as the "next big thing". But it could just go the way of 3D and not take off. Either way it doesn't affect viewers with lower resolution displays, just select 1080p in the player.

Yes it takes a bit longer to upload but that's not a big deal. I live in the Australian Bush and therefore my broadband is quite basic compared to what other countries offer but I manage just fine.

philscomputerlab wrote:

I found that IE actually works the best with 60 fps videos 😀

It's been a while since I have started IE

60 fps videos are smoother and more fluid but like you say it's more relevant when you actually play the game.

I agree. But it isn't really a huge deal when watching youtube.
I realize I might start a debate by saying this but personally I will embrace 48 FPS movies. 24FPS ugh...

I see higher resolution displays as the "next big thing". But it could just go the way of 3D and not take off. Either way it doesn't affect viewers with lower resolution displays, just select 1080p in the player.

They probably will be. But I can't see it being less than 4-10 years before they become common enough.

Yes it takes a bit longer to upload but that's not a big deal. I live in the Australian Bush and therefore my broadband is quite basic compared to what other countries offer but I manage just fine.

I live out in a rural-ish area. The broadband can just stream 1080p 30FPS. What is your upload/downoad speed?

philscomputerlab wrote:

Of course, but then you can't expect it to be totally smooth when displayed on a 60 Hz device. Does that make sense?

It does, mostly for older hardware. I thought modern graphic cards are able to hide any artefacts of the differences between framerates through buffers and vsync, filling out "missing" frames.

philscomputerlab wrote:

The first video sows up as 50 Hz the second one as 60 Hz.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know, provided that you mean fps, and that those framerates are displayed in the "Stats for nerds" thingy.

philscomputerlab wrote:

But neither are good for testing because the scenes change too fast and have no content that make it easy to follow. A large scrolling banner that scrolls for a while would work well.

I understood that the first time you told me 😜
I'll post more videos in this thread if I ever get to make more of those video loops for my recorded soundtracks. Hopefully something that's going to be noticeable at 60fps.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Either way it doesn't affect viewers with lower resolution displays, just select 1080p in the player.

It does affect quality of the processed video in the smaller formats. For example, a 360p video that's uploaded to YT will turn out looking worse than a 1080p video uploaded and playing it's 360p version, even if you were to just upsample the original video.

My monitor can support 50Hz using the custom resolutions feature, and can support 70Hz up to 1920x1080. However, my monitor is a native 1920x1200 panel, so I cannot get an ideal mode, at least with the Intel HD Graphics I am using. Maybe a discrete card would help.

Tried IE now, and am currently hating myself 🤣
Still getting only 30fps (25 in the case of Pang). Stats for nerds doesn't show any useful info on IE for some odd reason.

What is your setup like marooned_on_mars?

What processor and graphics card? What OS and browser version?

At my TV setup it's a Pentium 2.9 GHz on a Socket 1155 motherboard. Windows 8.1, Intel on-chip graphics and the latest versions of IE and Chrome.

smeezekitty wrote:

I live out in a rural-ish area. The broadband can just stream 1080p 30FPS. What is your upload/downoad speed?

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4005532779

It does affect quality of the processed video in the smaller formats. For example, a 360p video that's uploaded to YT will turn out looking worse than a 1080p video uploaded and playing it's 360p version, even if you were to just upsample the original video.

Yes I found that as well. One of the reasons I render even low resolution DOS videos at 1080p at least and with 4K videos there also seems to be a benefit when you watch such a video in 1080p.

Here is such a video:

http://youtu.be/kEo8GkSwoPE

Captured with Bandicam at 1600 x 1200 then rendered in PowerDirector at 4K and uploaded to YT. Video ended up at around 3 GB.

This is what I get on a good day: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4005829010
Guaranteed is 384 kBit/s down / 64 kBit/s up and I am not living in the countryside but in a medium sized german city that has two universities.
So 1 GB upload takes about 13.5h, if I do nothing else.

That must be a very basic plan, quite surprising in the middle of Europe.

I envy my brother, he gets 3x the download speed.

Cost is the other bit. I pay quite a lot, A$ 149 every month for 500GB + 500GB peak / off-peak. Once the holidays are over I will switch back to a small plan though. In the city are cheaper unlimited plans but in the country it costs extra. I could go with a cheap ISP like Dodo but iinet is more reliable and faster and I'm happy to pay for that.

philscomputerlab wrote:

That must be a very basic plan, quite surprising in the middle of Europe.

I think this is typical for Germany. The most basic I can get is DSL 2000bis, where the 'bis' means 'up to'. Technically this means that the phone cable quality does not allow to guarantee 2 Mbit/s (down) and you most likely get less throughput. However it is the lowest they offer, which basically means you pay 30 Euro for 384 kBit/s guaranteed (which may also reach 2 MBit/s). (price is phone+DSL package)
There are no other provider options as they would have to rent the cable from Deutsche Telekom, but could not deliver their minimum DSL speeds.
Of course there are districts with higher speed and when choosing to move somewhere else the available speed is an important point.

So the new 60 fps support of youtube is nothing I can use for playback. I am limited to 360p30 or 480p30 (works sometimes).
This also forbids to use the youtube live event feature for live streaming, twitch, video conferencing etc.

That's a shame. I live in Greece and the plans for ADSL are usually 2:

-2Mbit Down, guaranteed
-Up to 24Mbit Down/1Mbit Up

Most people own up to 24Mbit, however most seem to lock to 8Mbit. Back in ~2008, my router would work at 18Mbit and about 900Kbit Upload, since then however, the network has become a lot more crouded, so nowadays I'm at 12Mbit and 800Kbit Upload.

However, VDSL is becoming a little more prominent as of late. This will allow 30Mbit Down/2.5Mbit Up and 50Mbit Down/5Mbit Up. Thankfully, they're operating under a "Fiber to the Home" program. What this means is, DSLAM and SAIs are connected with fiber cables and SAIs are connected to buildings with classic, old copper cables.
Thinking of going the 50Mbit route myself. 😀

I'm a bit surprised if that is the state in the whole of Germany! It's a smaller country if you look at square-meters than Norway, but with a much much higher density. Should be pieace of cake to build out fiber and infrastructure! Here the plans start at 5mbit through either cable, DSL or even faster with fiber, but people normally have around 20-30mbit. I have fiber myself and the minimum I can get is 25mbit down/25mbit up full duplex, I currently have 50/50 and I'm paying 38 euro/month for it. My ISP deliver up to 1000/1000 for those who can pay for it. All unlimited plans. So there must be some problems with the competition of ISPs in Germany if a 5 million citizen country as Norway with a bigger land mass can offer better broadband options.

elianda wrote:

This is what I get on a good day: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4005829010
Guaranteed is 384 kBit/s down / 64 kBit/s up and I am not living in the countryside but in a medium sized german city that has two universities.
So 1 GB upload takes about 13.5h, if I do nothing else.

Don't feel too bad, I'm only getting twice that with a really basic plan out here in the sticks in America. That said it's reliably 5 MBit down 384k up. Inexpensive but I could be a lot more productive with better *sigh*

vetz wrote:

I'm a bit surprised if that is the state in the whole of Germany! It's a smaller country if you look at square-meters than Norway, but with a much much higher density. Should be pieace of cake to build out fiber and infrastructure! Here the plans start at 5mbit through either cable, DSL or even faster with fiber, but people normally have around 20-30mbit. I have fiber myself and the minimum I can get is 25mbit down/25mbit up full duplex, I currently have 50/50 and I'm paying 38 euro/month for it. My ISP deliver up to 1000/1000 for those who can pay for it. All unlimited plans. So there must be some problems with the competition of ISPs in Germany if a 5 million citizen country as Norway with a bigger land mass can offer better broadband options.

That's more like it 😀