ie8 fix
Click Here

Googling Google

Christopher Dawson

YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?

By | July 10, 2010, 10:32pm PDT

Summary: 4K resolution may not mean much now, but before long, YouTube has just given itself the potential to revolutionize the way cinematic movies are distributed and viewed.

Not yet, but we will.  YouTube announced Friday that viewers and uploaders were no longer limited to mere HD video on YouTube. From the “Our resolution is bigger than your resolution” files comes 4K video which amounts to nearly twice the resolution of IMAX. Which, quite frankly, isn’t going to play well on your iPad.

According to YouTube engineer, Ramesh Sarukkai,

“…we support original video resolution from 360p all the way up to 4K. To give some perspective on the size of 4K, the ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet; IMAX movies are projected through two 2k resolution projectors.”

OK, so what’s the deal? How is this of any relevance to the average YouTube user who most likely lacks a 25-foot screen, much less a projector or computer that can handle 4K video? Or to even the professional filmmaker who wants to upload content to YouTube but probably doesn’t have access to the $20,000 worth of equipment required to shoot at this resolution? Much less the rendering farm required to produce the video?

This isn’t about current capabilities. This is about YouTube changing the game in the next couple of years and setting itself up to be a distributor of high-quality original content. What would it mean if independent filmmakers could have their work shown anywhere with the equipment to stream and project it, rather than just at Sundance or Cannes (and probably in higher resolution)? Instead of being released straight to video, would movies get released straight to YouTube? Or movies that might only have a limited release garner much larger audiences on YouTube? It’s hard to say exactly where this will go, but it’s clear that YouTube and Google are positioning themselves for bigger and better things than your iPad.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Chris Dawson is a freelance writer and consultant with years of experience in educational technology and web-based systems. In 2011, he became the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network SaaS provider.

Disclosure

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson is the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., by day and a freelance writer and educational technology consultant by night. Well, most of his colleagues at WizIQ are based in India, so really he's working with them whenever he can stay awake. He has worked for his local school district as a teacher and technology director, for the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and for Biogen, Inc. (now Biogen-IDEC, Inc.). He has also consulted with STATNet and Cytyc Corporation and retains close ties with X2 Development Corporation (now owned by Follett Software, the supplier of the student information system he administered for several years). Follett is paying him a monthly honorarium to act as a presenter for their "SIS Voices for Student Achievement" community (he produces occasional blog posts and hosts a monthly webinar on the use of student information systems to inform data-driven instruction and school-wide change. He regularly purchases and/or recommends Dell hardware. This is because Dell makes good hardware and has truly committed itself to education in innovative ways, particularly with their "Connected Classroom" initiative. It isn't because he has dealings with the company through his role at WizIQ (which he does) or because they have provided him with long-term loans of a variety of equipment for in-depth testing (which they have). Intel (reference designer for the Classmate PCs he has implemented in his local schools) has provided him with long-term loans of Classmate PCs for testing, as have Dell and Lenovo with their educational offerings. He may report on any of these companies as his experiences with them have direct bearing on educational technology; positive reports are not necessarily an endorsement and he receives no direct financial compensation from these companies or any others. Intel paid all expenses for his attendance at the 2009 Intel Classmate PC Ecosystem Summit which he attended as the sole representative of the technology press. He was invited to attend in 2010 but his wife would have killed him if he spent 3 days in Vegas geeking out and left her home alone with a new baby. Acer provided him with a 50% discount on an Aspire One netbook in early 2009 after he tested it for 30 days through their educational seed program. He liked the netbook at the time but it has since broken and sits unused in his office. Canonical sent him Ubuntu lanyards, t-shirts, and mousepads for his kids. He stole one of the lanyards and proudly hangs his keys from it and occasionally features his 8-year old wearing an oversized Ubuntu t-shirt on his Facebook profile. Gunnar Optiks sent him a pair of computer glasses to evaluate for a holiday gift guide. He is wearing them now as he types this because they never asked for them back and they rock out loud. Seriously - they work brilliantly and make it much easier to spend 20 hours a day staring at an LCD. If they ever asked for them back, he would fork over the $99 and buy a pair. Microsoft gave him 2 free copies of Office 2010 professional, a desktop clock, and a useless book on Office 2010 when he attended the launch of Office/Sharepoint 2010. He occasionally uses the SharePoint lanyard they gave him instead of the Ubuntu lanyard for his keys, but feels dirty afterwards. Adobe provided him with a pre-release version of the CS5 Master Collection for evaluation and ultimately provided a full, licensed copy for ongoing testing of educational applications of this admittedly expensive software. Like the Gunnars, if the license expires or they come out with CS6, he'd actually go out and buy it himself. Which is saying something, because he's actually pretty cheap. Any other companies wishing to send him cool things to evaluate, wear, or otherwise adorn his kids are more than welcome to; he promises to disclose it here if he keeps any of the stuff. Finally, because WizIQ is a virtual classroom and learning network provider, Chris, as VP of Marketing, frequently interacts with, seeks out deals with, and directly or indirectly competes with a whole lot of LMS, SIS, and other Education 2.0 companies. In general, he'll limit his reporting about these companies to news that does not impact his relationship with them or with WizIQ. If he reports on them, it's because what they are doing is newsworthy or worth the attention of his readers and not because he's trying to broker some deal, damage competition, or otherwise advance his position in his day job. LMS and SIS companies, along with other online learning communities, are a pretty important part of Ed Tech. If he stops reporting on them completely, there won't be a whole lot left. He'll be sure to call out any overt conflicts of interest if they are unavoidable. Finally, Follett Software Company pays him a little tiny honorarium every month to present on their SIS Voices webinars and to write the occasional blog or discussion thread for them. Since Follett recently bought X2 (maker of an awesome web-based SIS that Chris just happened to have used, served in advisory groups for, and frequently reported on), this is probably also worth disclosing.

Biography

Christopher Dawson

Christopher Dawson grew up in Seattle, back in the days of pre-antitrust Microsoft, coffeeshops owned by something other than Starbucks, and really loud, inarticulate music. He escaped to the right coast in the early 90's and received a degree in Information Systems from Johns Hopkins University. While there, he began a career in health and educational information systems, with a focus on clinical trials and related statistical programming and database modeling. This focus led him to several positions at Johns Hopkins, a couple-year stint in private industry, teaching high school math and technology, and 2 years as the technology director for his local school district. Most recently, he started his own consulting business and is now the Vice President of Marketing for WizIQ, Inc., a virtual classroom and learning network provider. He lives with his wife, five kids (yes, 5), 2 dogs, and a hateful cat in a small town in north-central Massachusetts. Although he is no longer teaching, his roles with WizIQ and ZDNet allow him to continue helping students and teachers add value to education with technology rather than merely adding to the bottom line.
31
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
tehpea 14th Jul 2010
Great, now they can focus on the REAL problems, such as removing the ridiculous time limit.
0 Votes
+ -
Screen size, ideal
dogbreath1 10th Jul 2010
For me, the ideal screen size would be about 3 feet. What's the problem?
0 Votes
+ -
@dogbreath1

The problem is that, your friends may not come to your home to watch football happy
0 Votes
+ -
Did someone say problem?
rarsa 12th Jul 2010
@dogbreath1 :

It reads "he ideal screen size for a 4K video is 25 feet".

This means that with a smaller screen, you don't gain clarity and with more you loose clarity.

So, no, watching a 4K video on a 3 feet screen is not ideal.

Ideal : regarded as perfect of its kind.

For a 3 feet screen, a lower resolution will be ideal.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm underwhelmed by Blu-Ray, so you can imagine how much I care about 4K video..!?!

This isn?t about current capabilities. This is about YouTube changing the game in the next couple of years and setting itself up to be a distributor of high-quality original content.

I think the biological constraints of "being human" will mean that 4K resolution is going to be completely pointless for at least the next few million years, unless humanity is assimilated by the Borg first and we all get ocular implants like Seven of Nine's.

As for YouTube streaming movies to 25' screens, I can imagine copyright lawyers having aneurysms over that one. They get angry enough already when Joe Blow uploads so much as a "Downfall" rant to YouTube, and DVDs all carry warnings about how the movie on the disc is not for public showing. And now YouTube provides a resolution designed for public showing...?

This whole thing sounds like a triumph of technology over practicality to me.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
4nick8 Updated - 11th Jul 2010
@Zogg

I don't understand why people write that they don't care about things, when they are obviously progress, and when it is evident to them that most other people WOULD care.

Clearly we're not at the resolution-wall yet, where all displayed content possesses higher resolution than the eye is capable of seeing. If you move far enough away-- sure. But standard HD isn't enough for theatrical projection, in particular for something like IMax. This is why we have 4k projectors to begin with. Companies wouldn't waste time (and more importantly, expense) on 4k unless it had some added value.

As for the legal ramifications, I think you're missing the "bigger picture"-- youtube is already offering music videos and other such copyrighted content and is obviously working to be able to provide streaming video content authored by anyone-- individuals, recording artists, and with 4k-- the motion picture industry. Their idea isn't to offer 4k sizes so that individuals can post their hand-cammed versions of movies in cinemas. Come ON.

As for being underwhelmed by blu-ray-- if that really IS the case, I see it as follows.. either:
1) you are unable to perceive high resolution content due to infirmity
2) you should be supporting the move to 4k as this might be a resolution that *doesn't* underwhelm you.

Regarding your argument that humans can't perceive 4k-- well that's just wrong. Watch IMax at 2k and you'll see it (that is, if you have average eyesight). Furthermore, don't forget that the center of the human visual field is highly acute, much more so than the periphery, and so a given video frame has to be able to provide high detail throughout its entire area so that a human eye viewing that portion isn't disappointed.

For your information, the estimated amount of information needed to mimic human eye resolution for a given scene is in the neighbourhood of 800 megapixels (4k = 12 megapixels).
0 Votes
+ -
OK, hands up who owns an IMAX?
Zogg Updated - 11th Jul 2010
@4nick8

I don't own my own IMAX. I will almost certainly never own an IMAX. Will you? Do you know anyone who will ever conceivable own an IMAX?

Nor will I ever have any desire to project YouTube content on to the side of my house, my neighbors house, or possibly the surface of the Moon.

Their idea isn't to offer 4k sizes so that individuals can post their hand-cammed versions of movies in cinemas.

Ha, no. (But that would be funny.) My point is simply that this is a very, very niche product. It's not for you, or me, or anyone we might ever know, which seems bizarre for a site called You Tube.


As for being underwhelmed by blu-ray-- if that really IS the case, I see it as follows.. either:
...
None of the above. I simply don't own a screen big enough to notice the difference on. Sure, some people may have converted their basements into projection theatres in order to get the maximum possible benefit from Blu-Ray... But I am not one of them.


I don't understand why people write that they don't care about things

It's called "balance". If people who cared were the only ones who ever posted then you'd be left with the false impression that surely everyone must care .
0 Votes
+ -
@Zogg

"I simply don't own a screen big enough to notice the difference on. Sure, some people may have converted their basements into projection theatres in order to get the maximum possible benefit from Blu-Ray... But I am not one of them."

So you chose to hobble the experience with inadequate hardware and then complain about being underwhelmed by it? Self-fulfilling prophecy, much?
Right?
0 Votes
+ -
How is that relevant?
Zogg 12th Jul 2010
@rarsa

As the number of pixels increases, either the size of the pixels goes down or the size of the screen goes up. But I'm not getting any bigger, nor is my home, and neither am I developing SuperVision. But if you expect to be doing any of these things in the near future then good for you!
0 Votes
+ -
@rarsa - If you can deliver 4k, how far away from these are you? Moving into movie distribution to theaters? There are already some movies sent to theaters via digital streams instead of traditional media. This just sounds like more of the same. Imagine a theater could just project the movie showings they desired and rearrange movies being showed on their screens to maximize usage instead of being strictly limited. Or maybe their commercials and the previews are centrally hosted.... Plus, if they can steam 4k, does that mean they are that much closer to streaming 3D?
0 Votes
+ -
A little story
rarsa 13th Jul 2010
@rarsa : When I was growing up I had a 15" black and white TV. As far as I remember, it looked good. Then a maybe 20" colour TV. a bit on the purple hue, but It looked better. When the big ass TVs came to market I thought: Who can afford or really need that? Well, now most people around me do.

I am always behind the times when it comes to TV. That does not mean that I expect everyone to stay behind with me.

I have no idea if 4k streaming will ever be relevant, but I won't let my personal lack of vision compel me to criticize those that have it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
Jediguardian 13th Jul 2010
@rarsa AMEN Brother! LOL
The thing is, pixerl size will go down, screens are getting bigger ( I got a 55 LED 3D tv in my bedroom) and if you want to fill your 180? vision field as much as you can specially with 3D content you have to sit close to the screen, and 4k resolution will make the pixels unnoticeable, and that's way better! So I'm in thE "I care" side.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope.... don't care.
stevethehawk 11th Jul 2010
I used to enjoy perusing videos on YouTube. With their recent changes though it is lacking in useability. I liked having the star ratings so I didn't waste a lot of time opening videos that are absolutely idiotic/pointless. Now, it's a crap shoot. I basically don't use the site any more and don't much care what they do.
0 Votes
+ -
This is about YouTube changing the game in the next couple of years and setting itself up to be a distributor of high-quality original content.

I lol'd.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm thinking that the higher resolution stuff should be downloadable. Because if you stream it, you're not really gonna get the full resolution, because the compression artifacts will offset it.

In fact, I'd argue that compression already offsets the highest resolution stuff on the current system. A downloaded 720p video looks far better than the "720p" videos I see on YouTube.
0 Votes
+ -
Ultra HD quality garbage now?
kraterz 11th Jul 2010
Now we get to see aunt Martha's evening out and Timmy pulling the dog's tail in Ultra-HD? Superb. Takes me back to the "buffering...." jokes of RealPlayer. Guess I'll have to wait 2 days before a 15-minute clip downloads.
0 Votes
+ -
No, my set is only 48" and 720 is plenty. My issue is the iPhone 4 captures HD video but it won't directly upload to youtube in HD! What's up with that?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
bobby.kurtz@... 12th Jul 2010
@ampjam This is because YouTube's uploader app that does the HD conversion is built in gasp drum roll ... Flex/Flash. Steve Jobs open letter about Flash on the iPhone had a lot of valid points but this is a gotcha. Not gonna happen in HTML5.
0 Votes
+ -
Landscapes on demand
Patanjali 11th Jul 2010
Imagine where whole walls are a screen, the scenes could be beamed live from various places around the world from 4K CAMs.
0 Votes
+ -
@Patanjali

In people's homes? Global warming, anyone?
It's clear youtube will one day target pay per view for hometheater systems. this means they must be able to display video of high definition home systems. It's clear that today systems can only display 1080p. But what for tomorrow ?

Manufacturers are able to produce 300dpi screens for a 52" screen that is a 10k horizontal resolution. Does that make sense ? a 52" screen will be seen from 5 to 7m at most. with a 10k horizontakl resolution that is in the range of the capacity of the human eye to resolve details, so it does make sense.

Will manufacturer produce within a decade such high resolution screens ? probably not. Then what resolutions will they target ? Resolution common and that will become common in the industry. Which means 2k and 4k. In the comming months, postproduction will gradually move to 4k which will become the standard before a higher resolution standard emerge.

YouTube and then no choice other than scale for 4k. It does not mean it will become their core resolution, but only that they must be able to do it. And if they can, expect them to take credit...
0 Votes
+ -
I think we all miss the point
markflax Updated - 12th Jul 2010
If I read the article right, YouTube isn't thinking in the short-term about users like us viewing 4K resolution videos at home. They're thinking of the future, where film distributors stream their films, directly from YouTube, to audiences at venues that can display the higher resolution content.

If YouTube are right, they could change the way films are distributed altogether.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
K4thwright 12th Jul 2010
I have the same problem with this technology improvement that I have with 3D television and, in fact cable television. The difficulty, as has been pointed out by others, is that TV content, on average, is very poor. I only watch about 15 hours of TV per week, including 7 hours of news on Public Television and "60 Minutes" while I'm eating dinner, various network sports broadcasts in season, and maybe an hour or two of something else. I am able to, and occasionally do, record a program off-air directly to a DVD disk for later watching on my flat screen LCD TV. So I don't really care whether the technology improves to the point that I can discern the eyelashes on an actor's face or not. Until the visual entertainment content improves by an order of magnitude over its current quality level, I've spent enough money on entertainment hardware to last me until my current stuff breaks or wears out. When that happens, I'll re-assess my needs, but I'm not likely to buy anything just because it incorporates the latest gee-whiz technology.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
Alex G. (DV411) 12th Jul 2010
The history repeats itself: the exact same arguments were in play at the onset of HD: why produce HD when nobody has the screens, the bandwidth, or the taste for HD?

Guess what? happy
0 Votes
+ -
Adobe supports Red
bizcad 12th Jul 2010
Adobe Creative Suite supports Red, NVidia has cards that support Red and cheap Red cameras ( http://www.red.com/cameras/ ) are just around the corner. Micro-independent film makers can almost get into the business for under $10k. What they were lacking was distribution. YouTube could become the distributor of choice for them. It also sets up YouTube to be a pay-per-view provider.

Take a look at the trailer in 720 or 1080p. (I paid $199 for my 1080p monitor) Then download the movie in Red. I doubt that Blu-ray disks can handle that much data, and the development cycle on a consumer drive is long and involved. The delivery mechanism of choice will be broadband download.

Insofar as viewscreens are concerned here are some possiblities:
1. Live concerts and ball game in stadium viewscreens in Red
2. Video walls in clubs.
3. Ad walls instead of billboards.
4. Videos in car dealerships.
5. Interactive video wall games.

It is just a matter of time until the price comes down.
0 Votes
+ -
@bizcad No consumer is going to download a film in Redcode format.. that's a minimum of 224Mb/s. While it's actually less overhead to decode than AVC, you don't have the bandwidth, throughput, or storage for this kind of film.. yet. That's 28MB/s, 40GB per hour. Consumer HD camcorders are typically 24Mb/s or less... broadcast in the USA is 19.4Mb/s or less.

The format is 4K... that means nominally 4000x2000 (the YouTube limits are somewhat higher), encoded via the usual lossly compression intraframe algorithms used for other net video, like H.264, VC-1, or VP8.

Along with the fast network connection, you'll need a very fast CPU and GPU to play this back. But it's possible. My Quad Core2 system, along with a fairly old nVidia card, needs about 12% CPU to play a 1080/60p video at full screen. 4K at 24p will require less than twice the computational resources.
0 Votes
+ -
4K is good only for 46 to 65" only!
Gradius2 12th Jul 2010
If you want that same definition as founded on 23" 1080p monitor, you read me right.

If you don't believe just got to www.tvcalculator.com and see it for yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
What they're doing with this,
Wodenhelm 12th Jul 2010
is "future-proofing." A very wise move. Of COURSE it's "silly" RIGHT NOW, but "right now" is already being done.

You people need to go get jobs.
0 Votes
+ -
You may not being getting a larger livingroom or better vision, but over time, your TV is definitely getting bigger. When I was a kid, my Dad had a 25" diagonal TV in the "TV Room". Today, I have a 71" TV in my media room... and you don't have to give it a whack on the side to get the sound to work.

This isn't about absolutely screen size, either, it's about size vs. viewing distance, as it always has been. Opinions vary a little, but there are both SMPTE and THX standards for viewing distance vs. screen size vs. resolution. For my TV, the maximum SMPTE recommended viewing distance is 11.2ft, for THX it's 7.9ft. People with normal vision can fully resolve HDTV a 71" screen at 9.3ft.

If you doubt the advantages of HD, ponder this... do you still use a 13", 640x480 monitor. If so, I believe you. I'm currently looking at dual 24" monitors at 1920x1200/60p... fully resolved at my current viewing distance. It's not hard at all to imagine a single 4K monitor replacing these and my resolving the whole image on my desktop.

For the livingroom, the 4K version of the 71" TV will have a fully resolved viewing distance of 4.5ft... pretty close. But that doesn't mean at 6ft you're seeing SDTV... you'll still better-than-HD. I can fit over 100" in my media room... not that I _will_, but I can.

The real thing here is The Future. It's inevitable that DSLRs and camcorders will start offering better-than-Blu-Ray video, and soon. A few models, even consumer models, can shoot 1920x1080/60p video, which is twice the overall resolution of any Blu-Ray mode. HDMI 1.4 already supports 4K video at 24p, even if this isn't common in graphics cards yet. Most mid-to-high-end consumer camcorders are shooting with 6-8Mpixel sensors already (or multiple 3-Mpixel sensors), while video-capable DSLRs are shooting with 14-24Mpixel sensors. The ability to output 4K isn't there yet, but it's essentially just a software and computation problem. You'll need about 4x the DSP to encode 4K on the fly vs. HD. If that's not next years' video DSPs, it's those in the plans for 2012. Flash cards are already fast enough.

YouTube's savvy enough to be suggesting they're the consumer distribution answer for some of this, now, before there's any other consumer distribution medium. Sure, lots of networks won't support this, but some will, today. If you're happy with YouTube and other HD at 2-4Mb/s, you'll want 8-16Mb/s for 4K. But I just saw a billboard today for Comcast in Philly, offering 50Mb/s (sure, with limits, and I'll still be waiting for anything without 500MB daily caps in South Jersey, but this will be far more commonplace in 2011-2012).

And consumers accept changes in something like YouTube... that's free and instant, if your PC is already up to the task. With consumer-oriented video, it's another story. It took my years to move from SD to HD, and lots of gear: HDTV, DVD Player, Satellite box, HDTV#2, PS3, BD-R, another Satellite box, HDV camcorder, flash-based AVC camcorder. I'm not sure I'll just as fast for 4K. But I will go-see!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: YouTube 4K resolution: Do we care?
tech4usall 13th Jul 2010
WOW!... Why all the apprehension? I thought this was a tech site and welcomed "the newer, the larger, the faster, and the exemplary" to our lives. I for one appreciate the fact that, unlike our government, there are persons that look to the future to make life beneficial and productive for us all.
0 Votes
+ -
Great, now they can focus on the REAL problems, such as removing the ridiculous time limit.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix