YouTube now supports 1080p60 and 720p60!

[A.Y.]

Apparently YouTube started 60p support late October; however, not all browsers are able to show the 1080p60 and 720p60 options yet. The browsers I have that can display 60p options are:

Mac:
Chrome - OS 10.6.8 and newer
FireFox - no luck
Safari - Yosemite yes, Maverick no


PC - I only have Windows 8.1 at the moment:
Chrome - Windows 8.1 and highly likely Windows 7 also
FireFox - no luck under Windows 8.1
IE - Windows 8.1 and highly likely Windows 7 also

Still, the most reliable way to show 60p movies online is to embed the mp4 files on your own web pages - no issue with all major browsers except Mac version of FireFox.

YouTube may also support 48p, but I’ve not come across one example yet. Perhaps the next Hobbit trailer since the movie was shot in 48p. 2.7K 48p will do until 4K 60p and 48p become affordable.

 

[drbill]

I can see the appeal, but as one who shoots video for commercial purposes, I never put full res video on any web site including my own. I scale it down so viewers can get a feel for what I shoot and decide if they want to buy the full res versions.

 

[Interceptor121]

It is important to note that the bitrate is still the same regardless of format and closed gop of half frame rate with no B frames means identical quality for single and double frame rate
So for 1080p 8 Mbps at 24/25/30 for me is better than 50/60p
Pretty much the same issue with the cameras that encode it unless there is significant change in the way the encoding is done you need more bandwidth to make it worthwhile

 

[ScubaBob92651]

It is important to note that the bitrate is still the same regardless of format and closed gop of half frame rate with no B frames means identical quality for single and double frame rate
So for 1080p 8 Mbps at 24/25/30 for me is better than 50/60p
Pretty much the same issue with the cameras that encode it unless there is significant change in the way the encoding is done you need more bandwidth to make it worthwhile

It would depend on whether the content would benefit from smoother motion over increased resolution. A gamer is likely to take a (less noticeable) hit to resolution over a (much more noticeable) higher frame rate. Likewise, for UW video, if I'm posting a video of nudibranchs I may opt for 1080p30. But if I'm publishing a video of an active bait ball, or frolicking pinnipeds I would be better off posting in 1080p60. The P frames are still going to represent the delta (in this case, motion) since the last I frame. It would depend upon how efficiency of the encoding mechanism is to ensure that IQ is not sacrificed due to the increased motion in the footage.

 

[A.Y.]

It is important to note that the bitrate is still the same regardless of format and closed gop of half frame rate with no B frames means identical quality for single and double frame rate
So for 1080p 8 Mbps at 24/25/30 for me is better than 50/60p Pretty much the same issue with the cameras that encode it unless there is significant change in the way the encoding is done you need more bandwidth to make it worthwhile

You need to shoot some 60p footage and then use a "Professional" video encoder - Apple Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder (not iMovie) - to prepare a 60p and a 30p version at the same data rate. You're going to have a hard time telling 60p and 30p frames apart side by side, and even harder playing at 60fps. Because watching 60p version, your eyes still see the same amount of data as 30p not less. 60p will show fast-moving subjects like sea lions noticeably smoother than 30p and that's not hard to see at all.

As I mentioned before, the best way to show 60p movies is to embed the videos on your own web page so that much higher data rates can be used. For most people, YouTube is their only options to share high-frame-rate videos online right now.

 

[Interceptor121]

You need to shoot some 60p footage and then use a "Professional" video encoder - Apple Compressor or Adobe Media Encoder (not iMovie) - to prepare a 60p and a 30p version at the same data rate. You're going to have a hard time telling 60p and 30p frames apart side by side, and even harder playing at 60fps. Because watching 60p version, your eyes still see the same amount of data as 30p not less. 60p will show fast-moving subjects like sea lions noticeably smoother than 30p and that's not hard to see at all.

As I mentioned before, the best way to show 60p movies is to embed the videos on your own web page so that much higher data rates can be used. For most people, YouTube is their only options to share high-frame-rate videos online right now.

I use x264 encoder and have full control on the process so your comment about imovie doesn't apply
Regardless if you use AVCHD or same parameters between 30 and 60 there won't be anything more smooth at all

The professional encoder is needed in the camera when you shoot, doing it later achieves nothing so am afraid you are on the wrong track
Most people shoot at 60p and then compare 60p with the footage downconverted to 30 that of course looks worse. Shoot directly at 30p at the same bitrate and gop structure and you will see the image quality is better

As cameras have little chips inside shooting double frame rate requires using no B frames and low bitrates this pretty much kills the whole idea

If instead you look at equipment like panasonic GH4 with 100 MBps then is another story however an average fibre user will mostly take 30 mbits and this is still fairly compressed

Between 4k at 30 MBits and 1080p60 at same bitrate I prefer the first so youtube commercial policy seems pretty reasonable

 

[danvolker]

I have had better luck with higher video quality on youtube, by taking my color corrected and image tweaked cineform avis in 10 bit 4-4-4 format, and encoding them to h264 at 50 megs per sec av data rate....I believe when youtube processes this uploaded file, and makes it's renditions for various stream speeds, the quality of each rendition is much higher. I read quite a long time ago, that this was one of the reason Movie trailers being played on Youtube looked so much sharper and better than most other youtube videos--because the production companies send extremely large hi rez files to youtube, and they end up with much better renditions, even played at low data rates.

 

[Interceptor121]

I have had better luck with higher video quality on youtube, by taking my color corrected and image tweaked cineform avis in 10 bit 4-4-4 format, and encoding them to h264 at 50 megs per sec av data rate....I believe when youtube processes this uploaded file, and makes it's renditions for various stream speeds, the quality of each rendition is much higher. I read quite a long time ago, that this was one of the reason Movie trailers being played on Youtube looked so much sharper and better than most other youtube videos--because the production companies send extremely large hi rez files to youtube, and they end up with much better renditions, even played at low data rates.

Youtube only supports 4:2:0
The production companies have a pro account that allows higher bitrate though the parameters are the same
If you get a program to download your stream you will find out its capped at 8 Mbps
The best results for a normal user is to capture at the highest bitrate possible and then encode high profile at 8 Mbps using all possible optimisation and youtube supports so that the file is not re encoded
I produce two files one for youtube and one for myself the bitrate changes between 8 and 13-14 but I actually use constant quality not fixed or capped bitrate
Some of the key parameters have to do with scene detection and quantisation matrices or the way the prediction is done so you can squeeze more in the same bitrate

 

[danvolker]

Youtube only supports 4:2:0
The production companies have a pro account that allows higher bitrate though the parameters are the same
If you get a program to download your stream you will find out its capped at 8 Mbps
The best results for a normal user is to capture at the highest bitrate possible and then encode high profile at 8 Mbps using all possible optimisation and youtube supports so that the file is not re encoded
I produce two files one for youtube and one for myself the bitrate changes between 8 and 13-14 but I actually use constant quality not fixed or capped bitrate
Some of the key parameters have to do with scene detection and quantisation matrices or the way the prediction is done so you can squeeze more in the same bitrate

As far as I know, all h264 encodes are only 4-2-0....whether you want Youtube or not....the issue is the quality of the video after all color correcting etc, with the gradations required ( for instance, the nasty codec the Canon 5 d mark II uses -- while fine if the video is unchanged, causes very bad banding and blotchyness with the altered gradations of color correcting---which is why I upsample to 4-4-4 prior to color correcting)....and it is my experience, that there will be a much better 4-2-0 result for youtube or other H264 uses, if the avi file that preceded it, was optimized at 4-4-4 and at it's naturally much higher data rate....

 

[Interceptor121]

Surely but which camera supports even 4:2:2 when recording? If you loose it when you record it doesn't come back later. Currently you need an external recorded through an hdmi stream on most devices that are not pro level otherwise it records at 4:2:0 and there is nothing you can improve. With limited capabilities in camera the best option for me is get the colors right first time and limit correction. I compare my video to those done with much more expensive equipment and lots of grading and I don't see a huge gap to be honest