The most tactical old man on the internet Jerry Miculek blew a stack on a 4k camera:
Jerry has NEVER lived in the no flex zone. 0:22 – On some fruit loops shit, Dude evidently copped a toucan just to stunt.
If Apple would get off their ass and actually release 4k displays, I’d be on that viewing level. For now though I’ll slum it with 1080p. Actually 1080p seems to stream better anyway… I don’t know what kind of connection you need to stream 4k, but seems like mine chokes when I try.
So based. Thoughts?
Comments
10 responses to “Shooting Videos In 4k – Gold Jerry GOLD”
Yup, I permanently set my youtube to 1080p, 4k be like gag on it you filthy whore.
4x the resolution of 1080 and he’s still going “hickok45” and not using a tripod when he should.
Youtube claims its VP9 codec will eliminate the lag issues, but, no one seems to be praising it just yet.
I’m pretty certain that Youtube is using VP9 for 4K already. I don’t know the numbers for VP9, but with HEVC, you are talking 8-16x more computations for encode and 2-5x more for decode. The reward versus h.264 is roughly double the quality at the same bandwidth or same quality at half the bandwidth. It’s an aside, but encoding HEVC is so damn hard that it takes a handful of really crazy FPGAs or DSPs to get any kind of performance that approaches real time.
The problem is that it’s fucking hard for current gen hardware to actually do anything with these new codecs. The lag is not bandwidth related, it’s your device trying to decode and display the video. Graphics cards don’t have hardware acceleration for either VP9 or HEVC yet, so it’s purely a processor exercise, and the CPU in your device doesn’t have extensions to help it chew on the video either.
I have no lag from Youtube at 4K, then again I live in the land of amazing internets.
I have new 60 mbps cable service. Watching the video above only burns about 1/2 of my bandwidth for a few seconds at it seems HD videos buffer and stream quite generously from youtube servers. However, anything over 1080 gets really choppy and maxes out my processor. I could probably use my laptop to fry eggs this morning after trying to watch that in 4k.
Limitations are not bandwidth issues for me; just user end hardware related to HD via youtube player in browser.
A service that streams these videos to a non flash based player application would be golden.
Isn’t YouTube html5?
You have to enable it in the settings. By default, Youtube uses Flash. The HTML5 player is vastly superior in my opinion. Flash is just about the most abysmal piece of software ever (aside from JW Player, which is a festering turd and will hopefully cease to exist as things like video.js gain features).
Not to be a hater at all, but a 4k camera with a small sensor and bad lens is still a camera with a small sensor and bad lens. I’d much rather have a full frame DSLR or a 2/3″ ENG camera with some nice glass shooting at 1080p instead of something like a panasonic GH4 which is 4k, but has a sensor that is smaller than even APS-C sized HD-DSLR’s. Personally the only time I’d ever really want 4k is if I was doing some lazy pans and zooms in post, or was really doing some intense grading and color. 4k seems cool, but for the time being give me the large sensor, good glass, and a high frame rate, and that’s what really makes the shot.
Give me 60FPS
I remember when HD was introduced to Youtube. Prior to that the best you could do was “high quality”. This 4K is just the next evolution. Honestly, I just watch videos at the smaller default screen size most of the time. I guess it is better to have the ability to view things in 4K and off course you still have the option to view it at a slew of lower resolutions still.