Youtube mobile app - 8K and 8K60fps support

[kasdashd]

How come the Youtube app doesn't yet support 8K and 8K60fps video quality, when it's been on Windows for years?

 

This should also be supported for offline content, where the limit is currently just 1080p!

 

It wouldn't make any noticable difference for Youtube's servers, as very few people would use the option, and it could even be a Youtube premium, or a new Premium+ feature.

 

4K Youtube just looks terrible, cause of the insane bitrate compression, why 8K should be an option, even for devices without an 8K display, especially 4K TV's.

[whispous]

What do you mean "on Windows"? Do you mean in browser?

[Average Nerd]

1 hour ago, kasdashd said:

How come the Youtube app doesn't yet support 8K and 8K60fps video quality,

Last time I checked, phones had 1080p screens almost across the board, tablets sometimes have 1440p screens, I think. So why would anyone actually need that kind of quality on a mobile device? It just seems pointless.

[kasdashd]

38 minutes ago, Average Nerd said:

Last time I checked, phones had 1080p screens almost across the board, tablets sometimes have 1440p screens, I think. So why would anyone actually need that kind of quality on a mobile device? It just seems pointless.

Because the bitrate is higher, and as I said, for big non 8K TV’s. It’s the same reason people want 8K gaming, if anti-aliasing isn’t good enough at 4K.

[Electronics Wizardy]

2 minutes ago, kasdashd said:

Because the bitrate is higher, and as I said, for big non 8K TV’s. It’s the same reason people want 8K gaming, if anti-aliasing isn’t good enough at 4K.

There seems to be extremely little 8k video on Youtube, so while its better quality wise, almost no content is done in 8k. There is still a lot of 1080p stuff being made from big channels/companies.

 

I also have a 4k TV and have done some test 8k uploads(from a 8k camera with a full 8k workflow), and while it looks a bit better in 8k mode, its not really noticeable for most uses.

[TheLANguy]

2 hours ago, kasdashd said:

How come the Youtube app doesn't yet support 8K and 8K60fps video quality, when it's been on Windows for years?

As others have said, phones don't have 8k screens and typically can't stream at the necessary speeds.

Quote

This should also be supported for offline content, where the limit is currently just 1080p!

It wouldn't make any noticable difference for Youtube's servers, as very few people would use the option, and it could even be a Youtube premium, or a new Premium+ feature.

Yes it would. Remember 8k is the equivalent of 16 1080p streams. That's a lot of bandwidth! People will use the highest option because its "the best".

Quote

4K Youtube just looks terrible, cause of the insane bitrate compression, why 8K should be an option, even for devices without an 8K display, especially 4K TV's.

So why not Premium 4k with a higher bitrate?

[kasdashd]

1 hour ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

There seems to be extremely little 8k video on Youtube, so while its better quality wise, almost no content is done in 8k. There is still a lot of 1080p stuff being made from big channels/companies.

 

I also have a 4k TV and have done some test 8k uploads(from a 8k camera with a full 8k workflow), and while it looks a bit better in 8k mode, its not really noticeable for most uses.

I know there might not be a lot of native 8K content, but some channels have uploaded so many hours of AI upscaled content, which looks like it might as well have been made in 8K, and it’s that kind of content I’d like to watch in 8K on Youtube.

[kasdashd]

1 hour ago, TheLANguy said:

As others have said, phones don't have 8k screens and typically can't stream at the necessary speeds.

Yes it would. Remember 8k is the equivalent of 16 1080p streams. That's a lot of bandwidth! People will use the highest option because its "the best".

So why not Premium 4k with a higher bitrate?

Because 8K is 4 times the detail compared to 4K, so 4K with higher bitrate is just like downloading the video and viewing it offline at it’s full bitrate, so boring. And again, I know most people aren’t gonna use this, but still, all of the 15+ million subs to LTT are probably are little more interested in tech than the average person, and might be those who are interested in 8K content. And Google have the money and ressources to easily do this for, and cause the userbase is so small for this, it’s an equally small investment.

[TheLANguy]

1 hour ago, kasdashd said:

Because 8K is 4 times the detail compared to 4K, so 4K with higher bitrate is just like downloading the video and viewing it offline at it’s full bitrate, so boring. And again, I know most people aren’t gonna use this, but still, all of the 15+ million subs to LTT are probably are little more interested in tech than the average person, and might be those who are interested in 8K content. And Google have the money and ressources to easily do this for, and cause the userbase is so small for this, it’s an equally small investment.

I don't see why your not understanding this.

It cost Google money to host and serve videos. Therefore larger, higher quality videos cost more to serve. If the devices are not capable of playing it back in 8k why is it worth the cost? Changes like higher bitrate and better HDR will benefit the viewing experience much more for the average user.

Also what makes you think this is a worthy investment for Google? What "later benefits" will Google receive?

 

Heck LTT did a video on how 4k is borderline unreasonable when only 10% of people have a 4k capable device!