YouTube Format IDs
gist.github.com
gist.github.com
Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries.
Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content?
(Note: in the table it's about support for HFR content, and does not necessarily mean that content is HFR.)
And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.
It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.
How do you figure that?
Broadcast TV is very very very very firmly locked to 25 interlaced frames per second (or 29.97ish in the US where they have to do everything with funny numbers), interlaced to 50 (59.94 US) fields per second.
How could that in any way be VFR?
Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.
I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.
This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled.
[0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699
[1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120
They didn't have a choice. It was literally "be fine with it" or "don't play most games". Console players complain now if a game only runs 30fps, because you can't really go back. It's just not possible to play some genres at 30fps.
For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wasted and could be just fine at 12/15fps.
Back then, all broadcasters had to conform to ATSC 1.0 MPEG2 transport and MPEG2 encoding due to terrestrial broadcasts. The choices were 480i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p.
Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.
I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.
Yes, my vision tests are fine.
On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things.
Video resolution though? Never cared.
If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size.
If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there.
But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.
But if you tuned to a random channel, most people couldn't tell you if what they are looking at is SD or HD. "It's all digital, right?"
Again, if you then swapped to the HD version, they would immediately notice.
But we had so many stories of installers visiting customers homes on service calls to be confronted by massive TVs displaying 480i or 480p. And the customer as happy as can be with the picture quality.
And there were two version of this; (a) Two physical channels, one channel SD and one channel HD, and (b) a single HD channel and the DVR is can be set to down convert to SD.
I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did.
The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France.
The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.
24 FPS movies still do it, they just increase the exposure time so everything turns into a blurry mess - and often even that is not enough to hide the insufficient frame rate.
How fast you can pan also not only depends on the frame rate but also on the angular size of the screen so will be different for each fewer. Thus its better to use a higher frame rate to give more room to account for different viewing environments.
And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder".
strangely 50-60fps feels "unnatural" In a way? like uncanny valley sometimes?
You probably don't get the same feeling when watching live events.
I have a similar problem with 3D movies, shallow focus drives me nuts, because unlike in a 2D movie, I expect whatever I'm looking directly at in 3D to be in focus.
For <insert your favourite streaming provider here> ? No extra bandwidth. They just increase the number of predicted frames.
Are we back in the early 2000s or something?
The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.
I'm not on even a particularly expensive or specialised deal on my phone here in the UK and the cap is something like 1TB.
I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades
One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.
Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)
There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?
1080p of course is the height at the proper 16:9 aspect ratio of 1920 wide image. It just moves up from there keeping the same aspect.
Display manufacturers, streaming companies and home video distributors all use 4K in their labeling for not truly 4 thousand pixel wide resolutions. As do most random people that talk about the resolution. Yes, the UHD label is often included in a cover-your-ass way but 4K is very much being what 3840x2160 is being called in a lot of places.
yt-dlp --update-to nightly