YouTube adds 4k video support, but why?

Nathan Andrews 20 Jul, 2010 at 7:52pm ET Article published in Tech

In a move that is not yet understood, YouTube has begun supporting videos in the 4k format (4096×2304).

The primary question here is “Why?”

When consumer-grade displays are typically maxing out at 1080p (with the exception of some enthusiast displays), the idea of 4k resolution on YouTube just seems… well, pointless. Right now, it has the feel of a solution looking for a problem.

Couple this with the fact that they’re setting the maximum data rate at roughly 6.5Mbit, and it makes me wonder what they were thinking. I took a look at one of the 4k sample videos (see below). Even accounting for the crunching from 4k to 1080p, the images were horribly pixellated with visible dithering all around every color transition. Quickly flipping back to 1080p revealed a much smoother, cleaner image all around.

Some quick scratch calculations find that, at 6.5Mbit, each video frame has a maximum size (not accounting for the audio stream) of 216,667 bytes (assuming 30fps). A widescreen 4k image has 9,437,184 pixels. At 8 bits per pixel (way below anything someone would consider high-quality), that leaves us with a roughly 4:1 compression ratio. And that’s just for the video. Considering that most HD video clocks in with 7.1 digital surround, and you’re looking at very little video data per-frame.

Video with that kind of compression would leave a sour taste in even a regular viewer’s mouth. Anyone concerned with any amount of quality is likely going to immediately give this a pass.

So the question remains… Why?

Comments

20 Jul 2010 ~ 8:08pm Thrax 6.5Mbit for 4k. WAHAHAHAHA.
20 Jul 2010 ~ 8:45pm ardichoke I would assume they're planning on upping the max data rate in the future and are doing this in anticipation of that upgrade. Also, Google = nerds. They do it because they can damnit.
20 Jul 2010 ~ 10:06pm CustomPCMAX Seems like a case of some coder (or coding department) doing something just because they can... not because of a need. As Ardichoke said, the only thing I can think of is a plan for future rate increase, which could then make it useful. Though, even then, nobody has monitors with that resolution so what is the point?
20 Jul 2010 ~ 10:37pm Andrewcutter is that 8 bits per pixel or 8 bits per channel....
21 Jul 2010 ~ 9:09am AlexDeGruven

Andrewcutter wrote:

is that 8 bits per pixel or 8 bits per channel....

I made the calculations to be in the simplest form possible. 8bpp = 1Bpp, so the number of pixels = the number of bytes in the image.

Even as low as 8bpp (256 colors), 216kB for an image 4096 pixels wide is woefully inadequate.
21 Jul 2010 ~ 12:36pm PirateNinja Isn't this just a build up to Google TV and HD 2.0? Seems like a natural progression to me as well as some showing off, even if it doesn't make any sense right now. It's all about the future.
21 Jul 2010 ~ 12:44pm BobbyDigi

Gravite2090 wrote:

Isn't this just a build up to Google TV and HD 2.0? Seems like a natural progression to me as well as some showing off, even if it doesn't make any sense right now. It's all about the future.

Like Wave and Buzz... they will make sense some day right?... right guys?
21 Jul 2010 ~ 1:14pm shwaip I think it's definitely a move to make sure that video quality stays high in the "future" when "everyone" has 4k displays. This way, if people have 4k content, they'll just upload that and google will do the re-encoding to lower resolutions. This means that when I get my autogyro with 4k display built in, I won't have to watch paltry 1080p on it.

There's a lot of early youtube content that looks terrible because people uploaded it at some low res, and there's nothing google can do about it.
21 Jul 2010 ~ 1:49pm Bounkass Haha! 4k or not, the video WE see it still 1080... AND my PC is having ahard time... =(
21 Jul 2010 ~ 2:04pm Russ M. It looks crappy because no body has any devices that support 4k resolution yet. They are preparing (Way to early if you ask me) for when 4K becomes widespread.
21 Jul 2010 ~ 2:29pm primesuspect No, it looks crappy because the bitrate is so low that you can see horrible compression artifacts...
21 Jul 2010 ~ 3:02pm PirateNinja

BobbyDigi wrote:

Like Wave and Buzz... they will make sense some day right?... right guys?

Well they might, it's all business decisions. Buzz makes perfect sense, if Google acquires Twitter. It could be as simple as Google's board room saying
IF Buzz=fail THEN
(
buyTwitter();
integrateWithbuzz();
monetizeBuzztwitt()
)
ELSE
(
monetizeBuzz()
)

And were just waiting for a strategic timer to come down on that.

----
Per this 4k thing... undoubtedly in the years to come it will become a standard high-def resolution. Undoubtedly they do not have bit rate limits on their own testing equipment. So it would make sense for them to practice this all now, and integrate it in the future.

Remember Google always lives 5-10 years from now because they have the financial capability to live in the future. Every decision they make and everything they do has to do with the future. Integrating all of their advertising based cloud services and making them the very best there is available is required if they want to see the same success of Android on the display in your living room.

I'm willing to bet it happens. Especially with HDMI 1.4 having an ethernet channel, and that whole ethernet display cable thingy coming soon

All that being said, I could be completely wrong about everything of course. But as to simply answering WHY 4k on YouTube? It is because it is a business decision based on a long term goal. It doesn't matter that it makes NO sense whatsoever right now for consumers. It will in the future...as a success or a failure.
21 Jul 2010 ~ 6:06pm chrisWhite Awesome! More and more 4K projectters and displays are coming out and with the prominence of the RED camera and other 4K+ cameras growing at a steady pace this is great news. Granted, they're a little ahead of the curve since internet speed is so slow but it's a step forward if nothing else.

"Okay bitches, you can't complain about our resolution limitations for a good four or five years now. Suck it."
21 Jul 2010 ~ 6:30pm Thrax

Russ M. wrote:

It looks crappy because no body has any devices that support 4k resolution yet. They are preparing (Way to early if you ask me) for when 4K becomes widespread.

You don't need devices. A 4Kx2K stream using H.264 will be accelerated by the GPU just like a 1080p stream would, because the GPU just looks for the correct codecs to enable DXVA offloading.

If it looks like crap, it's because the bitrate is garbage.
23 Jul 2010 ~ 1:33pm D.Vader Are you really basing an entire article off of 1 YouTube video?

That is anecdotal evidence. It wouldn't be admissible in court so why would you bother bitching about a feature not working well in 1 video?

Did you ever stop to consider perhaps the source is the issue?

Please use your fuckin head before you write. Don't get headlong into a story over one instance. Do research to figure out WHY. WHY is always the most interesting aspect to ANY story.

How about you delete this article now and re-write it when there are hundreds of 4K videos on YouTube. That way you can approach the story from a factual basis and not just retarded off hand comments based on 1 video.

You are the writer why do I have to tell you how to do your job? Seriously, I want the last 3 minutes of my life back that you robbed me of with your simple minded writings.
23 Jul 2010 ~ 1:34pm shwaip Mr. Vader. Can I call you Darth?

They did the research to figure out why. The bitrate is too low to see any benefit from the increased resolution.
23 Jul 2010 ~ 1:41pm primesuspect "admissible in court"

THIS IS COURT!

/me dons his Robes of Everjustice
23 Jul 2010 ~ 1:46pm Basil
23 Jul 2010 ~ 1:46pm BobbyDigi

D.Vader wrote:

Are you really basing an entire article off of 1 YouTube video?

No.

That is anecdotal evidence. It wouldn't be admissible in court so why would you bother bitching about a feature not working well in 1 video?

Did you ever stop to consider perhaps the source is the issue?

Please use your fuckin head before you write. Don't get headlong into a story over one instance. Do research to figure out WHY. WHY is always the most interesting aspect to ANY story.

How about you delete this article now and re-write it when there are hundreds of 4K videos on YouTube. That way you can approach the story from a factual basis and not just retarded off hand comments based on 1 video.

You are the writer why do I have to tell you how to do your job? Seriously, I want the last 3 minutes of my life back that you robbed me of with your simple minded writings.

You should have stopped with your original question. Then you wouldn't look like an idiot in front of the entire internet.
24 Jul 2010 ~ 6:48pm AlexDeGruven Vader (I'll NEVER call you father! NEVER!!!!),

Since there is only one 4k source video, that's all we have to go on. YouTube decided to announce this of their own volition. Nobody found the source video and went "Hey, YouTube has 4k, look how crappy it is!" YouTube touted it and advertised it on their own. They wanted people to see it.

Also, the source video is just fine. If you watch the 1080p version, it looks 10x better.

You may feel free to continue this line of discussion if you like.