YouTube to get 1080p videos next week

Full-HD YouTube is coming. Google has written up a short announcement on the official YouTube blog to say its video service will start serving up 1080p videos next week.

YouTube currently lets folks choose between 360p, 480p, and 720p resolutions, distinguishing the latter two with the letters "HQ" and "HD," respectively, in the player interface. Google doesn’t say how it will present the new resolution, but it does note that material already uploaded in 1080p format will become available at full resolution soon. Nobody should need to re-upload any hefty video files, hopefully.

Google also provides a screenshot of 1080p YouTube in comparison with the other modes, although the choice of subject (a dog’s nose) seems a little odd to demonstrate video quality.

The new resolution should bring the service up to snuff with Apple’s popular movie trailers site, which has offered trailers and clips in 1080p QuickTime format for some time. Folks with those newfangled DSLR cameras like the Canon EOS 7D that can shoot 1080p at 30 frames a second will likely appreciate the feature, as well.

Comments closed
    • sigher
    • 13 years ago

    It’s so funny how people bitch about the bitrate of HD on youtube while meanwhile they don’t mind downloading low res copies of movies and TV shows, the most popular versions downloaded of movies are single CD size.
    Plus 95% of the youtubes uploaded are in SD resolution or VHS resolution, not even 720p, let alone 1080p.
    But hey, bitching is fun, but why not make a youtube bitch? in 320×240 $5 CMOS webcam format of course.

    • nerdrage
    • 13 years ago

    Crushed for bandwidth because they fill up their lineup with channels nobody watches. I wish they’d pull half of the channels and increase the quality on the ones people actually watch. *sigh*

    • ish718
    • 13 years ago

    Fail?

    Adobe sucks at programming flash.
    Youtube fails with bandwidth.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 13 years ago

    Amen. I hate that “HQ” and “HD” BS. And then video titles advertise “High-Def” and only give you 480p content. Why can’t the max res be presented in the title by youtube themselves?

    • stmok
    • 13 years ago

    Don’t know about Windows, but under Linux (Arch Linux) with Flash 10 and Firefox 3.5…

    A Celeron 1.4Ghz (PIII-era Celeron) system can do regular YouTube clips reasonably smoothly. But not HQ clips…Gets choppy.

    A dual processor Pentium III 1Ghz system can do YouTube HQ clips.

    Bare in mind:

    * Flash under Linux is bad in that CPU usage is high. (Poor implementation by Adobe…Gnash is better here, but not as good on compatibility as Flash).

    * Using Arch Linux that is tweaked and untuned. A default Ubuntu install is much bloat-ier.

    * Used AdBlock Plus with Firefox when visiting Youtube. (The more Java/Flash crap in the background, the more CPU grunt you need!)

    Adobe needs to release Flash 10.1
    (Its much smoother than 10.0…)

    • stdRaichu
    • 13 years ago

    Even better would be a version of flash that was capable of running even an SD video without outrageous CPU usage. An HD youtube would make my laptop battery cry – less frustrating to just pull down the FLV and watch in MPC.

    • stdRaichu
    • 13 years ago

    A pentium 2 is capable of even /[

    • insulin_junkie72
    • 13 years ago

    It uses a ton of bandwidth (and has to share the pipe with your internet connection); most providers are pretty crushed for bandwidth, hence the attempts to work around it with things like Switched Video (SDV), MPEG-4 compression, etc, or if all else fails, re-compressing the hell out of it (which is why cable/SAT often looks pretty crappy compared to a good OTA signal)

    • potatochobit
    • 13 years ago

    magical video that uses no bandwidth and comes out on your screen is called cable television

    • eitje
    • 13 years ago

    sweatshopking, i’m really happy for ya, and i’mma let you finish, but the Pentium Pro w/ MMX was the best video decoding processor of all time. OF ALL TIME.

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 13 years ago

    That is what decoders are for, no?

    • sweatshopking
    • 13 years ago

    you…. duh….

    • SomeOtherGeek
    • 13 years ago

    I agree, it takes way too much bandwidth for the video to stream smoothly… Might as well go back to downloading the context and then view it. I want my videos as smooth as a baby’s butt and not rough like a grandmothers!

    • Rulo
    • 13 years ago

    Would it play in my pentium III?

    • ironoutsider
    • 13 years ago

    And so the interweb could no longer hold the weight of the world and it’s 1080 p videos and crashed. That’s right the interweb crashed, every part of it.

    Seriously? With the current state of high speed internet and bandwidth shortages they decide to introduce this now?

    • d2brothe
    • 13 years ago

    Umm…unless I’m missing some sarcasm, It actually refers to progressive scan, as oppoesd to interlaced. You can have 4:3 resolutions on TV…they still call that 480p.

    • tocatl
    • 13 years ago

    Agree as well

    • anotherengineer
    • 13 years ago

    lolz the wifes old 2001 dell sounds like a vacuum cleaner just watching low rez youtube videos

    time for something with HD hardware decode, maybe discrete HD4650 mmmm

    • Vasilyfav
    • 13 years ago

    That’s great youtube, but how about a download button? I’m tired of having to use 3rd party addons to download something I want to keep.

    • jstern
    • 13 years ago

    Just checked out some 720p vids. 🙁 my poor laptop, it sounds like it’s about to explode.

    • Veerappan
    • 13 years ago

    But if you increase the pixel count and keep the bitrate the same, the overall quality will probably go down due to increased artifacts in the stream. The person you were replying to was implying that they’d have to increase the bitrate appropriately to match the increase in the number of pixels.

    • iatacs19
    • 13 years ago

    Youtube should work on their bandwidth first, the whole site is slow when viewing anything in HD.

    • 5150
    • 13 years ago

    Who are you trying to impress?

    • FuturePastNow
    • 13 years ago

    I always just use KeepVid to download the h.264 files from YouTube. Mainly because of my slow internet, but they play much better than Flash.

    • sweatshopking
    • 13 years ago

    this sounds quite interesting! i hope my pentium 2 can run it!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 13 years ago

    “jacking up” the pixel count is what 1080p does.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 13 years ago

    and Google would never lie!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 13 years ago

    it indicates a 16:9 image with x vertical pixels. It’s not rocket science.

    • btb
    • 13 years ago

    Agreed, 720p is plenty

    • designerfx
    • 13 years ago

    google has stated that youtube can be profitable if they choose. §[<http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-youtube-can-be-very-profitable-in-the-near-future-2009-7<]§ meanwhil,e they dont' even push their higher quality. I'm on a 22mb/s downstream and I'm waiting on youtube to send enough data constantly.

    • designerfx
    • 13 years ago

    I love how people add a P before a resolution. What’s next? 1024P! lol.

    • Shining Arcanine
    • 13 years ago

    I don’t think that would stop them from doing it if they wanted to do it.

    Edit: I meant to respond to #11.

    • Meadows
    • 13 years ago

    640p doesn’t even exist as a standard.

    • jstern
    • 13 years ago

    There’s still is the problem of quality loss when converting the original video into a youtube video. At least that’s what I’ve noticed with the 720p video. I really hope that in the future we would be able to upload the original source and have that play instead. Would that be possible with html 5?

    • lycium
    • 13 years ago

    isn’t youtube having a hard time staying profitable? streaming 1080p is the last thing they need…

    • kureshii
    • 13 years ago

    Oh nice. I bet these will look really great… downscaled to 480p. About time Youtube started serving decent 480p files.

    • Meadows
    • 13 years ago

    Except you can’t play them even with a Core i7 because Flash sucks so very much.

    I mean, their SD (“HD” in internet language) videos already screw over 90% of systems and look like crap.

    • KoolAidMan
    • 13 years ago

    It won’t be up to the quality of the 1080p clips on Apple’s movie trailers site unless they seriously jack up the bitrate as well as the pixel count.

    • wiak
    • 13 years ago

    pointless, unless adobe releases the flash GPU supported build anytime soon…

    and the 720p version dosnt look that much better than SD HQ one, all depends on the source

    • outspoken
    • 13 years ago

    That’s probably a good idea since they can’t even push 720p 90% of the time I visit the site.

    • dpaus
    • 13 years ago

    What idiot decided that instead of just using simple numbers to indicate resolution, like “1024×768”, consumers would understand it better if we used a cryptic code, like “WSUXVGA”?? If it’s 720 lines of resolution, just say “720”, /[

    • kvndoom
    • 13 years ago

    A dog’s nose is the ideal place to look for subtle details and nuances. 😛

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!