Floatplane Quality Options Suggestion

[Tommy59375]

During the latest WAN Show, Linus mentioned that the Floatplane team were in a bit of a debacle with regards to the best way of rolling out 4k streaming, mainly because Floatplane streams at a higher bitrate than other sites and users might get confused when they can't successfully stream 4k from Floatplane when they can from Youtube or Netflix.  In my opinion, the streaming bitrates should not be reduced.  A higher video quality stream is one of the key advantages of Floatplane.

 

Here's a link to the WAN Show episode in question.  Skip to 16:00 to listen to a wider discussion about a "competing" (not really a competitor) platform to Floatplane, or go to 17:48 to get right into it.  Linus sums up the issue quite nicely, and I'd recommend listening to what he says here before replying if you haven't already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIZ2E6gd_v0

 

I already posted a Youtube comment underneath that WAN Show video, but I thought I'd post here too as it might have a better chance of being noticed.  Apologies if this therefore comes across as a spam post, that's not my intention at all.

 

You don’t need to give the user an option for every possible resolution -- it's not even particularly user-friendly to present so many options.  Instead, you could just have the options of sub-SD, SD, HD, and ‘Best’ Low, Medium, High and 'Best'. Then within those options, use the connection speed to decide which precise stream to deliver.  For example, 720p or 1080p for “High”, or 360p or 480p for “Medium”. This avoids the need to produce multiple bitrate files for each resolution, whilst still being able to balance quality and bandwidth to give viewers the best experience.

 

The vast majority of people don’t need the granularity afforded by having 8 different resolution choices (like Youtube gives for 4k videos). But for those that would like it, you could have some sort of “Advanced options” page, where people can decide (among other things) whether they want to be given the specific resolution choices on videos instead of the simplified options. On this page, you could provide a brief explanation that “Floatplane’s lower resolution streams are of a higher quality than many other streaming sites and thus require faster connection speeds”. I think that anyone that takes the initiative to set this option themselves will be able to understand such a message.

 

I don’t know how feasible this is from a technical/implementation standpoint, but as a user it would be my preference.  I think it strikes a happy balance between simplifying the user experience (a-la Netflix) and giving the user options (a-la Youtube), whilst also allowing you to stream at higher bitrates without people running into too many problems.  You could even have slight overlapping within the different quality options, for example streaming 480p (but no lower) when "High" is selected if you detect that the connection speed wouldn't be able to handle at least a 720p stream at Floatplane's higher bitrate.  Obviously I would expect the stream to rigidly adhere to whatever resolution I choose if I've enabled that "Advanced option".

 

* If a creator uploads, for example, in 1080p then there’s no need to display the option for ‘Best’, etc.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Tommy59375
(1) Changed the names to Low, Medium, High, Best, instead of SD, HD, etc; (2) Clarified that I think Floatplane should not downgrade their bitrates. (3) Emboldened the call for people to listen to the WAN Show episode before replying.

[Tamesh16]

28 minutes ago, Tommy59375 said:

users might get confused

i dont know, i feel like i understand why users can be confused, but then i dont think its all that serious, i mean they can try and use some of the methods you suggested but if its worth the effort, i wouldnt be so sure 

[Sorenson]

Honestly, I think they should just upload the 4K file at 1080p bit rate. It will still look amazing, be better than 4K, and cost them less in storage. They’re a startup they should be frugal with their overhead. 

[Tommy59375]

12 minutes ago, Tamesh16 said:

i dont know, i feel like i understand why users can be confused, but then i dont think its all that serious, i mean they can try and use some of the methods you suggested but if its worth the effort, i wouldnt be so sure 

Linus' reason for asking us our opinions (they ran a straw poll during the live WAN Show, although I can never feasibly watch live) was that he thought some Floatplane users might (and already do, by the sounds of it) get confused or annoyed in some way that their connection speed can't handle a 1080p Floatplane stream when it can for Youtube, because Floatplane streams at higher bitrates.  I can only imagine that this problem would increase as they roll out 4k to the platform.

 

That being said, I wasn't necessarily making the argument that users would get confused but merely suggesting what I thought one possible solution might be if it turns out to be a problem.

 

I'll add a timestamp to the original post so people can reference the stream archive for context.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

Honestly, I think they should just upload the 4K file at 1080p bit rate. It will still look amazing, be better than 4K, and cost them less in storage. They’re a startup they should be frugal with their overhead. 

I think Linus said they wanted whatever their "4k" quality ends up being to be better than their "1080p" quality.  Linus also said that improved streaming quality is one of the distinguishing features of Floatplane and one of the reasons people should want to use it rather than watching on Youtube.

[Sorenson]

9 minutes ago, Tommy59375 said:

Linus said they wanted whatever their "4k" quality ends up being to be better than their "1080p" quality.  Linus also said that improved streaming quality is one of the distinguishing features of Floatplane and one of the reasons people should want to use it rather than watching on Youtube.

Their 1080p is already better than 4K. Maybe they could do two options, like regular 4K then a 4k high bit rate. I think the idea of just using low, medium, high, and ultra is better. Then have one of those hyper link blue i’s next to it explaining each setting.

[Tommy59375]

20 minutes ago, Sorenson said:

Their 1080p is already better than 4K. Maybe they could do two options, like regular 4K then a 4k high bit rate. I think the idea of just using low, medium, high, and ultra is better. Then have one of those hyper link blue i’s next to it explaining each setting.

They want their 4k to be better than their current 1080p.

 

My suggestion is effectively equivalent to having Low/Medium/High/Ultra options (and these may well be more suitable names than what I've suggested) but, since I can envisage that some of the more tech-savvy users of Floatplane might not like their sense of control and granularity being taken away, I thought it best to also add the option of choosing a specific resolution.

 

[TempestCatto]

Why not just put the bitrate next to the quality? Or put how many Gigs per min/hour it will use when streaming that way (I think Netflix does this in the settings)? I personally would hate not being able to force 1080p. Sometimes YouTube thinks my connection can only handle 720p (which in my opinion is not worthy of being called HD) so I switch from auto to forced 1080p and watch the video issue free. I don't think dumbing it down is a good idea. I think they need to cut back a little on their bitrate. Plenty of people will still want to access Floatplane from areas in the world where that kind of bitrate just doesn't work with their underdeveloped network.

 

Someone else had suggested on YouTube (and I know LTT saw it as they reacted to it) is to have a similar error message to YouTube when having playback issues. The message would explain the situation and all the bitrate stuff. Though that's a good idea, I think that should be pasted in many more places in bigger bolder text. It's a shame that it's not feasible to be able to detect the user's network and hardware and auto-switch the bitrate to a suitable one, whilst keeping the resolution the same. Until that option becomes a thing, I still think they should reign back on the bitrate. I agree, it would be lovely to have much higher ones. But right now, most people likely don't have the network for it anyway. And some people (like myself) never will unless they move far enough away.

[Tamesh16]

1 hour ago, Tommy59375 said:

nd already do, by the sounds of it

for our audience i thought they would be the best to understand

 

[MegamanXGold]

My suggestion is to eliminate 360p and 720p and have these options:
 

4k (High)
1080p (High)
1080p (Normal)
480p (High)
480p (Normal)
Audio Only

Normal modes could have bitrates that are similar to YouTube bitrates, which can help promote the default "High" quality levels.

[tim_20]

I support the idea of having a 4k murder bitrate quality download as i use it on my tv and soon projector. Lowering the bitrate on 1080p adding 1440p and 4k as live watch options. i think u could also remove all the quality settings under 720p their useless. I would be glad to pay more to afford a network crushing 4k download.

[Tommy59375]

10 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

Why not just put the bitrate next to the quality? Or put how many Gigs per min/hour it will use when streaming that way (I think Netflix does this in the settings)? I personally would hate not being able to force 1080p. Sometimes YouTube thinks my connection can only handle 720p (which in my opinion is not worthy of being called HD) so I switch from auto to forced 1080p and watch the video issue free. I don't think dumbing it down is a good idea. [...]

Linus said in the WAN Show that he feels it's not possible to explain what "bitrate" means, and how it's linked to resolution, to every Floatplane user.

 

With regards forcing a particular quality setting, yes you would be able to do that with my suggestion.  That's the whole point of giving each user the choice of whether they want to choose a specific resolution setting instead of a Low/Medium/High band.  It's not 'dumbing down', it's giving the user a more concise set of options to avoid confusion and clutter.  But for those that are sufficiently clued up on bitrate and streaming quality, such as yourself, the option would be there to have the more traditional resolution-based quality settings.

 

 

10 hours ago, Tamesh16 said:

for our audience i thought they would be the best to understand

Well clearly some don't, else Linus wouldn't have brought it up as an issue.  I think it's important to take a step back and consider people outside the tech enthusiast bubble sometimes.  Also consider that Floatplane will not be an LTT-exclusive; other creators will be able to start using the platform.

 

 

1 hour ago, tim_20 said:

[...] i think u could also remove all the quality settings under 720p their useless.

Clearly they're not.  Not everyone in the world has fibre optic broadband.  Some people still have monthly data caps, even in the US.  You don't have a use for a lower quality stream, that's great for you.  But the option is far from useless.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Tommy59375
elaborating

[tim_20]

11 minutes ago, Tommy59375 said:

Some people still have monthly data caps, even in the US

I'm sorry i thought data caps only existed on mobile. the point was to remove clutter that's why i suggested removing them.

[TempestCatto]

4 hours ago, Tommy59375 said:

With regards forcing a particular quality setting, yes you would be able to do that with my suggestion.  That's the whole point of giving each user the choice of whether they want to choose a specific resolution setting instead of a Low/Medium/High band.  It's not 'dumbing down', it's giving the user a more concise set of options to avoid confusion and clutter.  But for those that are sufficiently clued up on bitrate and streaming quality, such as yourself, the option would be there to have the more traditional resolution-based quality settings. 

The way I interpreted your suggestion is that you would choose between SD, HD, and UHD which in my eyes is dumbing it down. If thats not what youre saying, what exactly did I miss then?

[BuckGup]

It should be the other way around. 1440p but with an actually decent bitrate of like 45Mb/s. It's much easier to see blotchy greys, pixelation, and distortion from low bitrate than it is resolution if that means dropping the bitrate even more

[Tommy59375]

1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

The way I interpreted your suggestion is that you would choose between SD, HD, and UHD which in my eyes is dumbing it down. If thats not what youre saying, what exactly did I miss then?

 

This part of it:

 

18 hours ago, Tommy59375 said:

[...]

The vast majority of people don’t need the granularity afforded by having 8 different resolution choices (like Youtube gives for 4k videos). But for those that would like it, you could have some sort of “Advanced options” page, where people can decide (among other things) whether they want to be given the specific resolution choices on videos instead of the simplified options. On this page, you could provide a brief explanation that “Floatplane’s lower resolution streams are of a higher quality than many other streaming sites and thus require faster connection speeds”. I think that anyone that takes the initiative to set this option themselves will be able to understand such a message.

[...]

 

Therefore each user would have the option, if they wanted, to be presented with the classic resolution-based quality options like on Youtube and Floatplane currently.

 

To be clear, I think perhaps labelling the options simply Low/Medium/High/Ultra might be better than specifically SD/HD, etc.

 

 

1 hour ago, BuckGup said:

It should be the other way around. 1440p but with an actually decent bitrate of like 45Mb/s. It's much easier to see blotchy greys, pixelation, and distortion from low bitrate than it is resolution if that means dropping the bitrate even more

I think that's the point.  They want Floatplane to stream each resolution with a higher bitrate than Youtube and other competing sites do.

[TetraSky]

They could just add the 4k option, but make it no different to the 1080p one, meaning it'd basically be a placebo effect. They should do this just to see how many people claim "4k" look so much better...

[Kisai]

20 hours ago, Tommy59375 said:

During the latest WAN Show, Linus mentioned that the Floatplane team were in a bit of a debacle with regards to the best way of rolling out 4k streaming, mainly because Floatplane streams at a higher bitrate than other sites and users might get confused when they can't successfully stream 4k from Floatplane when they can from Youtube or Netflix.  In my opinion, the streaming bitrates should not be reduced.  A higher video quality stream is one of the key advantages of Floatplane.

 

 

IMO, the problem is not the resolution or bitrate when it comes to streaming, its the device capability on the other end. You can stream H265 at the same resolution and half the bitrate, but the number of devices that can play it will be limited to those using iPhone6, Geforce GTX 10x0's or better. VP9, can be played back on slightly more hardware, including AMD R400/R500 and Ryzen models with a GPU core, Intel ix-6xxx or later, nVidia Geforce GTX 9xx, Android and Nintendo Switch devices. 

 

If you just stream h.264, then you top out at 1080p for playback capability at reasonable bit rates available to home internet users. The H264 5.2 profile is 4Kp60, 4.2 is 1080p60, and  3.2 is 720p60. But the rates that Youtube puts out are about half of what is reasonable. However most hardware decoder blocks are not capable greater than 1080i60 (4.1) because they were designed without 1080p60 and 4K in mind. So an nVidia GT 500/600 GPU will likely choke at that point.

 

Nevertheless, unless they put out a smartphone and smarttv app, it's going to be an issue getting people to actually see the content, and people on smartphones/smarttv's/tablets don't want to be prompted to login since typing "complex passwords" on these devices is annoying. Floatplane could just read the user agent of the incoming user for devices that are not a Windows/Mac/Linux PC and select the highest bitrate by default that that device is capable of, and if the ip address range falls into a known "mobile phone service" give the user the option to lower the bitrate/resolution so they don't destroy their data plans. For all other users, just allow a "maximum bitrate cap" setting, with the default set to auto. If the player stutters, knock the bit rate down the the next lower setting and then peg it to that for the entire video when on auto. If not on auto, determine what the highest successful bitrate is and allow the user to select "higher frame rate" or "lower frame rate, higher resolution". And since 4K introduces rec.2020, that also adds another variable.

 

Like they could have a diagnostic video that streams white noise at each bitrate/resolution, and have the user go "this looks OK to me" / "This looks bad/skips/stutters", to determine their device capability/bandwidth/resolution. Then just use that by default.

 

[Dakkomakko]

I would just use low/medium/high/ultra (or similar names), with the bitrate behind. 

 

Or are people too stuck with resolution?

[TempestCatto]

42 minutes ago, Dakkomakko said:

I would just use low/medium/high/ultra (or similar names), with the bitrate behind. 

 

Or are people too stuck with resolution?

"Resolution or no solution"

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

[LAwLz]

On 5/26/2019 at 4:30 PM, BuckGup said:

It should be the other way around. 1440p but with an actually decent bitrate of like 45Mb/s. It's much easier to see blotchy greys, pixelation, and distortion from low bitrate than it is resolution if that means dropping the bitrate even more

45Mbps is way too much. It would kill their bandwidth and not really provide any higher quality than a saner bit rate would.

 

I don't have Floatplane so I can't check, but I assume they only use H.264. How about limiting 4K to VP9? If people complain about how their old devices can't play it that well, then tell them to use 1080p. But realistically it shouldn't be a problem for like 90% of his audience (I assume) to play VP9. It's been implemented in fixed function hardware in mobiles for ages (about 4-5 years, and few people have that old phones) and desktops usually has more than enough horsepower to do it in software if they don't support it in hardware (supported since RX400 and GTX 900).