YouTube Now Supports 4K

Chris Durham · July 9, 2010

Can anyone explain why this isn't the silliest idea in web delivery?

Brian Rose · July 9, 2010

This just seems bat$#!+ insane to me.

Can anyone explain why this isn't the silliest idea in web delivery?

I especially like their explanation that Imax is projected via dual 2K projectors, ergo, 4K on youtube is as good as Imax. Imax now being compared to youtube? Those guys REALLY need to get control of their brand, and what it means.

Chris Durham · July 9, 2010

They need to come up with a set of instructions on the best way to duct-tape 4 monitors together because I have no clue how else to take advantage of that resolution on the average computer.

Saul Rodgar · July 9, 2010

They need to come up with a set of instructions on the best way to duct-tape 4 monitors together because I have no clue how else to take advantage of that resolution on the average computer.

I agree, but I think it would be up to 16 1K monitors put together (depending on aspect ratio), not just 4, which would be a 4:1 aspect ratio image.

How many people with a 4K projector AND the ultra high speed internet connection available to them to take advantage of this are out there? Barring that, what monitor supports 4K anyway? Therefore, youtube has gone bat s h i t crazy indeed. Oh, sorry, they just are "ahead of that curve . . ."

RED is coming out with the 8K camera any day now, so those "visionaries" at youtube better catch up. But I have plans to upstage them ALL with a 16K pocket camera that records 10,000 fps in 3D at full uncompressed resolutions to be delivered wirelessly to anyone who owns an iPhone, so there :lol:

Chance Shirley · July 9, 2010

Is YouTube still converting everything to 30p? If so, they should start supporting other common frame rates (24p, 25p) before worrying with uselessly high (for the foreseeable future, at least) resolutions.

Brian Rose · July 9, 2010

Is YouTube still converting everything to 30p? If so, they should start supporting other common frame rates (24p, 25p) before worrying with uselessly high (for the foreseeable future, at least) resolutions.

Ditto. And how about some love for native aspect ratios?

Chris Durham · July 9, 2010

Ditto. And how about some love for native aspect ratios?

Double Ditto that.

A friend of mine just tweeted: "Just watched YouTube 4k at .05fps on my laptop's 1440x900 resolution, and I concede: IT'S AMAZING!!! :/"

I'm honestly baffled. Did Jim Jannard win a bet or something?

Karel Bata · July 10, 2010

"...there are a few limitations that you should be aware of. First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K aren’t cheap" :lol:

So is it converted to a Flash file?

(takes a quick look)

.flv and .mp4

Is that artefacts in the dark greens at 15 seconds? Camera or encoding?

K Borowski · July 10, 2010

Umm, OK, how many computer monitors can DISPLAY 4K? How can they possibly stream that without compressing the hell out of it?

Maybe we should watch 1/4 of the movie at a time? :-D

I work with a gentleman who is head projectionist at an IMAX theatre (not a 2-2k LieMax, but the 70mm 15-perf. kind). Maybe he can write them a letter explaining the EIGHTY MEGAPIXELS of difference. IDK what 96MP of resolution (rougly) on a 2nd generation IMAX contact print even is. That's over 10K though, I think.

Speaking of Ks, is the assumption always that there's a 1.85 aspect ratio when you're throwing the generic term around? You kind-of run into problems when you're talking about anamorphic or IMAX then making a 1:1 comparison, because IMAX is roughly 4:3 proportions, like television. Talking about Ks of resolution can be very misleading when you're comparing completely different aspects, anamorphic squeezes, and now 3D projection systems that only use half of the chip per eye.

K Borowski · July 10, 2010

What the hell are they doing making their "4K" a 1.33 aspect ratio? And, shouldn't it be 2160p, or are they using the bigger number because it's a greater amount of fluff. Same thing with keeping the aspect ratio more squarish, so they can throw a big vertical number around too?

This is actually a brilliant marketing move. Vidiots will gobble it up. Embrace the technology, not its form or function, not the art or the craft. With all of the people who CAN'T see past the marketing, this is probably a better time than ever before to work in this field. Someone is going to need to know how to USE all of this shj*t that they buy for $20,000 without a clue what an APERTURE or a FRAMERATE are.

Chris Durham · July 10, 2010

I work with a gentleman who is head projectionist at an IMAX theatre (not a 2-2k LieMax, but the 70mm 15-perf. kind).

Hey Karl, do you mind disclosing which one? I'm looking for the best place to see "Inception."

Thomas James · July 11, 2010

All this is an attempt to break the gridlock. 4K computer monitors and televisions are not available because there is no 4K content. 4K content is not available because 65mm film is too expensive. And Blu-Ray disc does not support 4K. So the only way to break the gridlock is if someone supports 4K regardless of its practicality. So Cinematographers rush out to buy 65mm film and 4K digital cameras even though there are very few 4K or IMAX projectors. Early adopter consumers rush out to buy 4K televisions even though there is no 4K content.

However what may break the gridlock is the 3K format. Red Scarlet promises cheap 3K at 120 frames per second. Readily available computer monitors support 2560x1600 resolution. And 8 perf Vista Vision is the more affordable alternative to 65mm film.

K Borowski · July 11, 2010

8-perf. Vistavision, except maybe the 500T pushed a stop, has AMPLE resolution for 4K, even after cropping it to a usable cinematic aspect ratio.

Chris, it's not in NYC. Let me see if I can find you a list of locations in your area. I found a good one in '08 looking to see "The Dark Knight." Never been to an IMAX in NYC, though. It's funny, I was at NYFA and the AMC was boasting about how it was "ALL DIGITAL" right down the street from a group of people as passionate about film as me. :)

Thomas James · July 11, 2010

8 Perf Vista Vision is indeed good enough for 4K digital projection but my main point is overcoming gridlock. Theatre owners that invest heavily into 4k projection will expect real 4K content not just blown up 4 perf 35mm film.

Chris Durham · July 11, 2010

Yeah Karl, the one at Union Square right? I live right around the corner from there. I was browsing through my Fandango App yesterday and noticed that Digital Projection is listed as an Amenity. That just gets back to my feelings about Thomas's post and the proper marketing of the format. Ugh. I mean, it's an amenity if I'm watching something shot in digital or made in CG.

K Borowski · July 11, 2010

8 Perf Vista Vision is indeed good enough for 4K digital projection but my main point is overcoming gridlock. Theatre owners that invest heavily into 4k projection will expect real 4K content not just blown up 4 perf 35mm film.

No they won't. They are, frankly, too stupid to care. Stockholders own theatres, and GMs are 27-y.o. kids who have degrees in other fields or worked their way up from the popcorn stands, or both (hypothetically, of course).

Chris, I did look into IMAX theatres in NYC that would be showing your film in 70mm 15 perf. (the theater I refer to is an Omnimax location that doesn't show commercial films). There are five or six IMAX theatres in NYC, so I'd recommend calling each of them to find out if they're showing the movie on film or the 2x-2K projector LieMax. Just type in "IMAX locations" and enter NYC as your host city, and they should pop up. Obviously, a film blowup onto 70mm is going to blow away 2K projection in terms of image quality.

K Borowski · July 11, 2010

I didn't notice, originally, that you were talking about "Inception." That movie should shine just as much as "Dark Knight" did, although I think they only shot this one on 65mm 5-perf., not 15. What I read in the article was that the movie was all contact-printed just like "DK." To my knowledge, this makes it the first movie since "DK" in 2008, or before that in "There Will Be Blood" to be predominantly finished on film.

I drove to two different states to see "Dark Knight" in IMAX. It was worth it. . .

Valentin Farkasch · July 12, 2010

Hey Karl, do you mind disclosing which one? I'm looking for the best place to see "Inception."

i just did a lil google search and it seems that the

AMC Loews Lincoln Square 12

is th eonly REAL Imax in NY

could find anything about the Union square theater ... would be awesome if it is because it would be more convinient

K Borowski · July 12, 2010

could find anything about the Union square theater ... would be awesome if it is because it would be more convinient

I said it was the opposite of that, that it is all digital, and proudly advertising that fact, not an IMAX location.

I'm kind of surprised that the only film IMAX location is also an AMC. I would think the stand-alone IMAX locations are going to be the ones that are most resistant to converting; their audiences care more about image quality in general.

How were you able to tell whether they were Film or Liemax locations, Valentin? I could only get names to pop up when I searched, not what format they were projecting.

Chris Durham · July 12, 2010

So, I went to the IMAX.com website and did some poking around. Each theater has a Theater Type description that describes the projection.

For Lincoln Square it says:

"IMAX's projection system that uses our rolling-loop 15/70 film technology to deliver crystal clear images in 2D and IMAX 3D."

whereas the 34th and 14th describes:

"IMAX's digital projection system that combines the power of two modified projectors with IMAX's proprietary image enhancer to deliver crystal clear images in 2D and IMAX 3D."

So there you have it from the horse's mouth.

Curiously it also describes the movies playing there. Right now, they're playing Twighlight: Eclipse:

"digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of the IMAX Experience with proprietary DMR (Digital Re-mastering) technlology"

It's description of Inception, however is:

"digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of the IMAX Experience, providing the world's most immersive movie experience."

Interesting, because there wasn't a DI done for Inception. Did they do one for the IMAX transfer? It seems like Nolan and Pfister would scream about that a bit. Maybe it's just something they put on there without thought because most are digital and, as the marketing folks always like to point out, digital is better <_<

David Bowsky · July 12, 2010

I thought "The IMAX Experience" was a different type of projection than IMAX (the 2x 2K projectors vs. traditional IMAX). Looking at the theater descriptions on the IMAX site, the one in Emeryville near me is listed as an "IMAX Experience" theater while the Metreon in SF describes "film loop" projection (someone posted the full text above).

I would think for "Experience" a digital finish is needed to get it into theaters with that equipment. I would hope the traditional imax prints were contact printed as suggested by a lot of the press surrounding the production process for Inception.

Edited July 12, 2010 by David Bowsky