YouTube has an 8K video (that almost no one can watch)

YouTube has an 8K video (that almost no one can watch)



The equipment to shoot it might not exactly be widespread, and the displays needed to view it at home are even less so, but 8K video has made its way to YouTube. It's a feature the outfit announced way back in 2010, but only just recently did a clip surface that actually uses all of those lines of resolution.
The clip's called Ghost Towns and it's a slow-panning journey through what looks like a recently abandoned mining settlement. Mountain View told 9to5Google that the 8K label was added earlier this year, but 4320p footage has only appeared pretty recently. The video description notes that Ghost Towns was shot using a RED Epic Dragon 6K camera in portrait orientation and to hit the higher resolution, some of the footage was upscaled or stitched together with Adobe's After Effects suite.

Very few of us will be able to watch this on our everyday machines thanks to the sheer amount of system resources it takes to handle a video of this magnitude, but those who can should be happy to know it apparently runs in Chrome and Safari. Of course, you can peep it in lesser resolutions below as well.

Source
http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/10/youtube-8k-video/

 

Off yes, firefox won't even display it. Chrome does an admiral job but it's a slideshow (running on intel hd 4000)

Even a 7970m falters haha

 

Challenge accepted, will try at home

4K 60fps challenge failed though so I wonder what the outcome will be on this one.

 

Chrome can't handle it either lol

It plays but is also a stuttering buffering mess

Gonna try Safari

No Safari for Windows any more? Or am I blind?

 

A GTX 680 and an i5 3570k can't handle it apparently, getting 12-15fps.

 

I lost interest in 4K already. So many youtube vids are either poorly optimized or youtube destroyed the quality.

 

I think it's the browsers that are struggling rather than the hardware, my CPU/GPU usage was less than 50% and it was still stuttering

 

Yep, wouldn't mind just a higher bitrate 1080p/720p for high motion.

Going up to like 1440p or 4k sometimes helps a little

 

Works fine in Chrome for me. Though whatever method it's using to shrink it is poor, it has obvious aliasing to the point that native 1440p looks far better.

 

Works fine? Wonder why no-one else can play it

4k plays fine, but soon as I change to 8k, it gives like 10fps and starts getting slower to about 3fps

 

I'm already slapping on contrast/color tweaks to "aid" with the youtube compression as it is :x

 

Works fine here, at 0-10fps =D

 

i can barely see a few chopped off lines with stuttering images inside them, I blame that yt crappy player, downloaded it and it shows the actual video but at slideshow speeds

 

choppy on chrome here.

 

I just checked again, works fine, no choppiness. It's pretty intense on the CPU though, it shows one of the 9001 Chrome processes taking 20%+ of the CPU and overall CPU usage at 30%+. I'm guessing AMD's moar coars approach doesn't cut it for the per thread performance necessary. Check your Task Manager, one thread is probably kicking your CPU in the dick.

Edit: I just noticed Eclap says he's getting some choppiness. Weird. If a 4770K cuts it I would think a 2500K should as well considering it's at 4.5GHz. :/

So maybe it's not just a CPU issue...

 

Doesn't look like one core is being pegged out, resources seem fine, if I could download it in 8k I am fairly confident VLC could play it - it feels like Chrome is struggling, but how could that be if yours is working fine, are you running the latest stable?





Another strange thing is that it is constantly buffering too, I have a 76meg down connection, no way it's struggling to download it

 

I'm using Chrome version 43.0.2357.124 m, Windows 7 64, latest terrible nVidia drivers.

The Task Manager could be deceptive, any load can be split among all threads by the OS management can't it? It can still be limited by the per core performance. For example 1 core is maxed, but then the OS distributes the workload in time slices to 3 other cores showing ~25% usage each core. Or does it not work like that in Windows and I've been fed false information?

 

Im using Version 43.0.2357.124 m too - but with Windows 8.1 & latest terrible NVIDIA drivers lol

Wonder if it has anything to do with Windows versions

Not sure about the task manager question, I've always assumed it shows real time workload per core but never investigated further into it

I know if I run a single threaded benchmark like Cinebench, it will show just one core being pegged in task manager, so I guess it shows what's really happening to each core

EDIT - I have no issues playing 2 x 4k videos simultaneously, I expect that would put the same load on the system

1 in VLC, 1 in Chrome

EDIT - Just realised you can copy / paste the youtube video into VLC and play it from there - I have "Best available quality" set in preferences, so it should be playing in 8k if VLC supports it, and it plays smooth and perfectly

 

I know benchmarks/stress tests show whatever threads selected being stressed and only those threads. But I could have sworn some of my old single and dual threaded games would have the workload shown as spread over all 8 threads. I've actually been wondering about this for a while so I hope someone has an answer.

Edit: You say 2 4K videos at once are fine. But you'd have to run 4 of them to match it. It's 2x length and 2x width, 4x the pixels.

 

You might well be right, it's not something I've ever looked into before, i'm still pretty sure the machine is not the issue though, as above I can play 2 x 4k videos no problem at the same time, if I could be bothered, I'd say I could play more than two at once

Wouldn't mind finding out what the problem is though, maybe because I have NVIDIA Surround enabled? I`ll give it a shot on a single screen later on

EDIT - 2 x 4k videos are not equal to 1 x 8k video?

EDIT - lol my bad, just found this

8K Ultra HD is sixteen times the resolution of Full HD, and four times of 4K Ultra HD.
http://www.winxdvd.com/answers/4k-vs-8k.htm


I`ll try running 4 x 4k then lol