YouTube Bringing 60 FPS Playback Support

[Slegiar Dryke]

If you can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS there may actually be something wrong with you. You should see a doctor.
Check this site out: http://30vs60.com/

Not so much night and day as 6:00pm and 6:05pm. If it didn't say which was which I don't even think I'd be able to tell. And even when I can see a difference, it's not some indisputable perception of 'better', just different, having the same sort of impact on me as a slight tweak to the brightness level or something.

this about sums it up for me too.

I keep thinking people are joking or that it is some new kind of online wind-up when people go "Hurr hurr no difference between 30 and 60FPS" but i turns out some people are serious 0_o.

half of it for me is I genuinely don't care. I've always gone by the Nintendo measurement of "Gameplay first" over graphical ability or speed. And some will jump on me and say "HUUAAAHH, but the Speed is part of that EXPERIENCE"....not if it doesn't make the game any VISIBLY better(see below). so that's one mark. the other half could be partly having bad eyes (ironically partly from looking at a computer screen most of my life), and partly being more used to adapting between different speeds, since I play a wide swath of older games, and not many flashy new gen stuff. and while I may notice some fps differences here and there on what ones I do play, it really is NOT "visibly night and day" as everyone keeps spouting -_-

also I tried that 30v60 site.....and as some others have said...yeah, they look roughly the same. and I'm not going to go to a doctor for bad eyes until it affects my everyday life.......which it doesn't. I already wear glasses to help that.

 

[Grimh]

That's great news. Took them long enough.

Check this site out: http://30vs60.com/

I think this site: http://30vs60fps.com does a good job at showing the difference by having them switch instead of being side by side.

-snip

At the risk of sending you to the same site yet again have you tried the one I linked above? Maybe it'll work better.
As I said switching in real time might make it easier to see the difference rather than a side by side comparison.

 

[Strazdas]

snip

Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, to answer your question, Game Anyone does support 60 FPS on videos, as I've been looking at Kurant's PC playthroughs for shooters (used his TitanFall walkthrough for reference) and they are in 60 FPS. I could be wrong though, since I'm not always the best person when it comes to judging. The only two real main obstacles I ever see is the video time limit, and the file size limit. Time limit for upload isn't too bad though, since generally you start off with like 20 minutes, and leveling up helps you level up. File size also isn't a problem as long as you are uploading something like a raw .AVI or something. File size limit on Game Anyone is between 3 to 4 GB, anything higher won't be uploaded. YouTube also has a size limit, but it's a lot more lenient since YouTube has Google's backing. If you're in good standing with YouTube, then you can upload files up to 20 GB in size. Now why anyone would ever be dumb enough to do that is beyond me, since that upload and processing time would take hours if not days. Time limit on YouTube is also unlimited as long as you are in good standing, but if you aren't then your time limit for videos is only 15 minutes, and the file size is reduced to 2 GB for a video size.

Thanks for an answer. the liits sound quite reasonable, but there were times when i uploaded up to 90 minutes chunks. as far as filesize, somone uploading for example in 4k (happens nowadays) would need a lot of filesize for longer videos. Another reason may be quality, but for youtube that would be quite pointless due to youtube compressing the video anyway. Wouldnt take hours for everyone though. If they managed to max my connection that would be a bit over 27 minutes, but of course i never saw youtube do that as they usually have slow ass upoad servers.

half of it for me is I genuinely don't care. I've always gone by the Nintendo measurement of "Gameplay first" over graphical ability or speed.

Gameplay first objective for Nintendo is precisely why they went for 60 fps 1080p for most f thier games instead of fancy graphics. because resolution and framerate actually improves gameplay unlike high poly count.

 

[BrotherRool]

That's great news. Took them long enough.

Check this site out: http://30vs60.com/

I think this site: http://30vs60fps.com does a good job at showing the difference by having them switch instead of being side by side.

-snip

At the risk of sending you to the same site yet again have you tried the one I linked above? Maybe it'll work better.
As I said switching in real time might make it easier to see the difference rather than a side by side comparison.

Huh, I can see it. Yeah that ones a lot better than 30v60.com. I can see why people would like it now

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

Gameplay first objective for Nintendo is precisely why they went for 60 fps 1080p for most f thier games instead of fancy graphics. because resolution and framerate actually improves gameplay unlike high poly count.

that and gee, I dunno....COLORS and actual fun games *shrugs* regardless, I look for the gameplay in everything, not just nintendo. so it gets really annoying how often it feels like I see what looks like a pretty fun game, and people are bitching left and right about the framerate. or forcing framerate higher and breaking a game because of that, and then complaining........'s pathetic XP but that's just my POV

 

[Zeraki]

Its probably a big difference for some people but I highly doubt its as universal as claimed. I have friend who can see the difference now that he has been able to play pc games but for him it was a learned skill and he could only see it when it was pointed out to him.

I definitely think that is what's happening here(and why this argument exists in the first place). I started gaming almost exclusively on PC about three years ago, now whenever I'm playing a game on consoles the frame-rate is very noticeable to me. I recently went back and played the original Mass Effect on 360 and was blown away by how horribly choppy that game runs. It's also very noticeable in Mass Effect 2.

It seems that unless you're accustomed to it, it isn't as noticeable.

 

[Six Ways]

It is if done properly.

That's entirely subjective. As is the definition of "properly".

I do know that most props are built to be just barely not noticable due to motion blur, which is why they had to rebuild props after first Hobbit. but that is cutting corners in prop making and not much else.

This is an over-simplification. Motion blur is not the issue - the issue is suspension of disbelief. Higher frame rates look more 'real', so your brain sees fantastical things as being obviously fake, rather than part of the illusion. It's an uncanny valley thing, which again means that higher is not always better. Until, of course, you make everything essentially perfect, which isn't going to happen for... well, ever, as far as it makes any difference to this conversation.

24 was determined as the lowest framerate where humans dont proclaim it to be a slideshow instead of motion, but to say that its perfectly fine is like saying that its perfectly fine to live on just water and bread becuase apperently you can survive with that.

24fps was not determined as the minimum frame rate humans can see, that's a common misconception. 24fps was in fact the rate required for the optical sound technology of the time. Somewhere around 16-18 is closer to the minimum visually, making 24 comfortably within the range we interpret as motion. Silent films used to be at 16-18fps for that very reason.

To clarify - I absolutely think higher frame rates are better for gaming, since it's an interactive medium. I'm simply saying the constraints and goals in other media differ, and while you personally may prefer higher frame rates, others may not - and for perfectly valid reasons.

Okay, so why do framerate conversion at all? Why not convert to whatever resolution and format they like, but keep the framerate at whatever the original file used?

Because standardisation and known parameters are good. Imagine, for instance, a 1080p video at 1,000 fps. Do you a) standardise the bitrate, or b) standardise the quality? In the first case, the quality of each frame will be appalling, while in the second you'll be streaming files at Gb/s. Further, if youtube delivers in a handful of known formats/bitrates, the people making the middleware (ISPs) and end-user software (browsers) know what technology to support. Allowing completely arbitrary files results in fragmentation.

 

[Cerebrawl]

This is an over-simplification. Motion blur is not the issue - the issue is suspension of disbelief. Higher frame rates look more 'real', so your brain sees fantastical things as being obviously fake, rather than part of the illusion. It's an uncanny valley thing, which again means that higher is not always better. Until, of course, you make everything essentially perfect, which isn't going to happen for... well, ever, as far as it makes any difference to this conversation.

When I'm in the cinema and the camera pans... I'm immediately wrenched out of my immersion because it's just SO CHOPPY.

Even the Hobbit was choppy to me, regular 24fps movies are worse still. I'm constantly reminded that it's all fake because the framerate makes it so choppy. I'm having trouble enjoying movies in the cinema for this reason.

It's not as bad on TV/monitor, because of the smaller screen size, but it's still noticable.

If anything, a higher framerate creating a more real impression helps disbelief, rather than hinders it for me. It is more immersive, where low(standard) framerates are a constant reminder of how fake it all is.

 

[Olas]

To repeat what's already been said in this thread a thousand times: FINALLY!

One would think 60FPS would come before 3D and 4k resolution, but Youtube works in mysterious ways I guess. Now we won't have to link to external websites to show the difference between 30 and 60 fps anymore.

Also, in some cases I wonder if lower framerates wouldn't be desirable too, for people who have shitty connections who aren't very concerned about video quality because maybe they aren't watching the video, or maybe the video is practically a slideshow anyway.

24fps was not determined as the minimum frame rate humans can see, that's a common misconception. 24fps was in fact the rate required for the optical sound technology of the time. Somewhere around 16-18 is closer to the minimum visually, making 24 comfortably within the range we interpret as motion. Silent films used to be at 16-18fps for that very reason.

I don't even think 16FPS is necessarily the lowest the human eye can accept. There really isn't some breaking point at which the eye can't perceive motion anymore, it just gets progressively worse the lower you go.


I would argue that even at 5FPS your brain can pretty much fill in the blanks and see it as video rather than a series of still images. At 1FPS it breaks down admittedly, but that's a huge drop from even the next lowest.

Of course watching video and playing a game are very different, games requiring higher FPS to feel comfortable.

 

[Weaver]

My phone can shoot 1080p 60fps videos.

 

[truckspond]

As long as there is an option to still use the lower frame rate by default then I will be happy

 

[WldCard]

For those interested in seeing how the 60fps videos look, YouTube has a sample playlist up now, including Titanfall footage, a Battlefield: Hardline trailer, and a Video Game High School trailer. Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbsGxdAPhjv9UrLo19pS8teoRKj7funAy

Make sure to switch the resolution to HD (720p or 1080p) to see the framerate increase.

Oh, and I know all the focus is on the 60fps number, but YouTube actually announced upcoming support for both 48fps AND 60fps.

The "tip jar" feature (fan funding), is also already being previewed on a few channels. It's actually not tied into Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but those services were mentioned as examples. It basically puts a "Support" button on the channel, allowing viewers to donate $1, $5, or "Other" (any amount) to the content creator. I don't have the info on the fee structure (if any) yet, but it's a great way to help fans support their favorite content on YouTube.

Other things mentioned during VidCon and after include the YouTube Creator Studio app, available now on Google Play and "in the coming weeks" for iOS. The app allows content creators to access analytics, edit/post/delete comments, and generally manage their YouTube channels from their mobile device.

There's also new "fan submitted" subtitles to go along with automatic speech recognition and translation (so videos can reach a wider, international audience), an expanded Audio Library (now including thousands of royalty free sound effects, in addition to hundreds of free songs to use in videos), expanded creator credits, and interactive info cards (which will likely be eventually used in the place of the current annoying annotations).

As far as an exact release for all these features, it's pretty much just an overall "in the coming months". Some things, like the app, are already up and running, while others, like the higher fps and fan funding, are slowly being rolled out and previewed.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

I don't even think 16FPS is necessarily the lowest the human eye can accept. There really isn't some breaking point at which the eye can't perceive motion anymore, it just gets progressively worse the lower you go.
-video snip-
I would argue that even at 5FPS your brain can pretty much fill in the blanks and see it as video rather than a series of still images. At 1FPS it breaks down admittedly, but that's a huge drop from even the next lowest.

Of course watching video and playing a game are very different, games requiring higher FPS to feel comfortable.

if I remember from a few videos on youtube, talking about the resolution the eye can see and some of the frame rate of our vision, the numbers came out that at a minimum, to see a large image and not be able to discern it from how we normally view the world, our resolution is about, 576 megapixels, but at a glance, a blink say, we only see about 7, most of which is for the interior 2 degrees of your vision, where you actually focus on something in the center of your view, if I'm remembering correctly. and for the "Frame rate" (not quite correct since our eyes aren't cameras), I think it was our visual cortex holds info for about 1/15th of a second, meaning below 15 frames per second is, roughly, the point where things will start to really lag-jump. higher multiples of 15, smoother viewing up to a point ^^ kinda neat stuff =)

 

[Strazdas]

Gameplay first objective for Nintendo is precisely why they went for 60 fps 1080p for most f thier games instead of fancy graphics. because resolution and framerate actually improves gameplay unlike high poly count.

that and gee, I dunno....COLORS and actual fun games *shrugs* regardless, I look for the gameplay in everything, not just nintendo. so it gets really annoying how often it feels like I see what looks like a pretty fun game, and people are bitching left and right about the framerate. or forcing framerate higher and breaking a game because of that, and then complaining........'s pathetic XP but that's just my POV

fun gameplay is different for different people. for example i find Zelda boring, many people like it. and thats fine, people have preferences. meanwhole something like framerate, resolution and FOV is static measurements where all can agree that larger is better, so people tend to complain about things that are factual rather than just opinion based, because, you know, arguing "i hate this game therefore it sucks" isnt productive. Sploon is just titanfall with colours but just look how many fans it has before its release already.

This is an over-simplification. Motion blur is not the issue - the issue is suspension of disbelief. Higher frame rates look more 'real', so your brain sees fantastical things as being obviously fake, rather than part of the illusion. It's an uncanny valley thing, which again means that higher is not always better. Until, of course, you make everything essentially perfect, which isn't going to happen for... well, ever, as far as it makes any difference to this conversation.

this is bull. framerate and motion blur does not make things magical. suspension of disbelief does not wpork on framerates. the "cinematic exprience" bull is just that - bull. our brains dont work like that. we see things as obviuosly fake when they are obviuosly fake, regardless of framerate. its just that motion blur sometimes allow things to be blurred out enough for us to not be able to see (like giving a blurred image of a car and then you cant tell that the licvense plate is fake if its so blurry you cant see whats on it).

24fps was not determined as the minimum frame rate humans can see, that's a common misconception. 24fps was in fact the rate required for the optical sound technology of the time. Somewhere around 16-18 is closer to the minimum visually, making 24 comfortably within the range we interpret as motion. Silent films used to be at 16-18fps for that very reason.

To clarify - I absolutely think higher frame rates are better for gaming, since it's an interactive medium. I'm simply saying the constraints and goals in other media differ, and while you personally may prefer higher frame rates, others may not - and for perfectly valid reasons.

Nope. they did testing with FPS and determined that at 24 frames per second humans can be tricked into thinking its motion, so they built the requipment for it. and yes, silent films didnt knew about that and thats why they look so choppy. i mean dont tell me you cant see silent films being slideshows.

Because standardisation and known parameters are good. Imagine, for instance, a 1080p video at 1,000 fps. Do you a) standardise the bitrate, or b) standardise the quality? In the first case, the quality of each frame will be appalling, while in the second you'll be streaming files at Gb/s. Further, if youtube delivers in a handful of known formats/bitrates, the people making the middleware (ISPs) and end-user software (browsers) know what technology to support. Allowing completely arbitrary files results in fragmentation.

considering that youtube does not do quality videos to begin with (youtube videos are terribly compressed) i dont think they would have a problem with standardizing quality at as low as they got it.

and for the "Frame rate" (not quite correct since our eyes aren't cameras), I think it was our visual cortex holds info for about 1/15th of a second, meaning below 15 frames per second is, roughly, the point where things will start to really lag-jump. higher multiples of 15, smoother viewing up to a point ^^ kinda neat stuff =)

the thing with that is that it is our cones and (forgot the scouentific name of cell) that transmit data to visual cortex as they see light. we have literally millions of these in our eyes, and while they do fire only once every ~1/30th of the second, they dont fire at the same time, which means that theoretically we could see up to millions FPS (in practice the best tests resulted in 210 FPS being visible while they could not conduct higher FPS tests because didnt have the equipment for that)

 

[lacktheknack]

...and yet it won't be used outside of promotional materials and a few enthusiasts, because seriously, dat upload size.

 

[Six Ways]

this is bull. framerate and motion blur does not make things magical. suspension of disbelief does not wpork on framerates. the "cinematic exprience" bull is just that - bull. our brains dont work like that. we see things as obviuosly fake when they are obviuosly fake, regardless of framerate. its just that motion blur sometimes allow things to be blurred out enough for us to not be able to see (like giving a blurred image of a car and then you cant tell that the licvense plate is fake if its so blurry you cant see whats on it).

If it's all down to motion blur, why does a 180 degree shutter (50% motion blur) look more "cinematic" than 360 degree shutter (100% motion blur) which looks more cheap and "real" (i.e. sets look fake)? Why does a shot with a static background not look obviously fake in all cases regardless of the lack of any blur? Again, you're oversimplifying. Suspension of disbelief is a complex thing, and unless you're a neuroscientist I doubt you've got any solid basis on which to disregard this.

Nope. they did testing with FPS and determined that at 24 frames per second humans can be tricked into thinking its motion, so they built the requipment for it.

Source?

 

[Rozalia1]

That's great news. Took them long enough.

Check this site out: http://30vs60.com/

I think this site: http://30vs60fps.com does a good job at showing the difference by having them switch instead of being side by side.

-snip

At the risk of sending you to the same site yet again have you tried the one I linked above? Maybe it'll work better.
As I said switching in real time might make it easier to see the difference rather than a side by side comparison.

The cube link people have posted is a good one as you can clearly see that the 15 frame one is a bit choppy, and how it improves as you check it at higher frame rates. That one...you spin faster at 30 frames? What is it supposed to be telling me?

 

[Roxas1359]

...and yet it won't be used outside of promotional materials and a few enthusiasts, because seriously, dat upload size.

That's pretty much where I'm at. It already takes forever just to render and upload, and I don't need that time to be increased more. If only my CPU was the amazing one my friend has. For me, rendering a 30 minute episode of BioShock 2 at 720p and around 30 FPS takes about an hour and a half to 2 hours. Don't need that time increasing at all that's for sure.

 

[Jadwick]

Sooo... do 60fps videos look cheesy to any one else? On the side-by-side comparison website the 60fps video just looks wrong to me.

It's probably because I'm trained so much on 24 to 30 fps - video being at 24, and my old compy only being able to hit 30's on most games nowadays.

ALSO: Can't we just get a user settable frame-limiter on new games, huh? I think the real problem I have is the stuttering.

 

[Grimh]

The cube link people have posted is a good one as you can clearly see that the 15 frame one is a bit choppy, and how it improves as you check it at higher frame rates. That one...you spin faster at 30 frames? What is it supposed to be telling me?

I agree, boallen is a great reference for seeing the difference.
As for my link, you're not spinning faster at 30 there are just less frames depicting the turning motion. I don't see the 30 toggle as being faster, just more choppy. The 60 toggle being much smoother as it turns.
Which is what it is telling me at least, and it allowed BrotherRool tell the difference which is what I wanted to help him see.