Youtube at 4k

[WALDO]

I tried 4k on my 1366x768 resolution and my monitor, Firefox and the flash player had heart attacks

My gaming PC could easily render 4K videos at that same resolution using Google Crome with no slow-down. My GPU and CPU are too good for YouTube.

[Ad Bot]

[Dexxtter]

every time i click on the 4k one the video breaks and turns green

[Parallax]

Looks great because of the higher bitrate.
If only people could configure bitrates on YouTube, this way if you really want to buffer like a mofo, you won't have to make a video with an obscure resolution so people can click the Original option that allows people to watch it with the bitrate you set.

Also this site needs 60fps 720p.

[Georges]

I tried watching a 4k clip, and the FPS slowed dramatically. I switched it to 1080p and it smoothed out. :o

[Cybersix]

Great. Now I just have to get a monitor that has a 4k display.

No you don't. That's a gross waste of money.

[Johnny Blockhead]

There isn't any slowdown transitioning from low resolution (1080p) to 4k.
Well, atleast for me.

[Port]

"10 stage fps, 25 video fps, 221 dropped"

It pretty much instantly buffers most 4k videos so it can't be the connection.
Judging by the amount of dropped frames, it's absolutely not the hardware either.

It looks way higher than 25 FPS, too.

[Teneksi]

I'm lucky enough to have between 50 and 90 mbps download here. All I can tell is that it looks better than the 1080p setting.

[WALDO]

Look at this guys. Battlefield 4 at 4K: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjG5nIpKf64

I have a smaller resolution than 1080P but 4K still looks really good to me. Mainly because it's a higher bitrate so it looks cleaner.

[LeetZero]

No you don't. That's a gross waste of money.

Talk for yourself.
For anyone who use their desktop more than to play Minecraft it's a good thing to have, as long as the PC also handles it well.
For anyone who uses their PC as a workstation it's an exceptionally good thing to have.

[Teneksi]

I'd get a higher-res monitor if it meant not already seeing the limits of my new graphics card

[SWAT One]

I don't think you understand how resolution works.

Your monitor is 1920x1080, the exact resolution of 1080p video. This means every pixel of the video has a pixel to fill on your screen.

Loading a video in 4K does not magically quadrouple the amount of pixels in your screen. To fit on your screen the video has to be scaled down so that it loses enough of its pixels to fit on your screen, meaning blur algorithms have to be enacted to average an area of pixels into one pixel. This would actually decrease the quality of the video over raw 1080p.

This.  You have to have a really good screen for this to work.

[Cybersix]

Talk for yourself.
For anyone who use their desktop more than to play Minecraft it's a good thing to have, as long as the PC also handles it well.
For anyone who uses their PC as a workstation it's an exceptionally good thing to have.

For 4k to make a noticeable difference, the tv/ monitor would have to be enormous.

[BluetoothBoy]

For 4k to make a noticeable difference, the tv/ monitor would have to be enormous.

Er... People have been saying that it looks better than 1080p on their lower-than-1080p res screens, so you're point doesn't really make much sense. And as someone who does video work, 1080p quality in video and from CGI are two different things. There would be a lot less different between 1080p and 4k CGI than real footage because you can control the input and output much more. For real life footage, though, those extra pixels can be a lifesaver; especially if you're trying to do, say, motion tracking. Way fewer dropped tracks with a higher pixel density.

[Cybersix]

I was talking about video, not cgi. With 4k video, you'd need a tv the size of your wall to notice a difference.

Er... People have been saying that it looks better than 1080p on their lower-than-1080p res screens, so you're point doesn't really make much sense.

Placebo effect.