vetz wrote:

I'm a bit surprised if that is the state in the whole of Germany!

No, it's certainly not the case, at least in most large cities. Here in Munich, we have 50Mbit down with phone for 25eur a month, and we're considering upgrading to 100Mbit soon, as it was just installed in our area.

I have 5 down and 1 up. It is just fast enough to stream 1080p

Yes I found that as well. One of the reasons I render even low resolution DOS videos at 1080p at least and with 4K videos there […]
Show full quote

Yes I found that as well. One of the reasons I render even low resolution DOS videos at 1080p at least and with 4K videos there also seems to be a benefit when you watch such a video in 1080p.

Here is such a video:

http://youtu.be/kEo8GkSwoPE

Captured with Bandicam at 1600 x 1200 then rendered in PowerDirector at 4K and uploaded to YT. Video ended up at around 3 GB.

I am surprised it isn't more than 3 GB but still...I don't understand why you would render it at 4k. Maybe 1440p might make sense
but at 1600x1200 -> 2560 ... you can't just make resolution out of thin air

Here in Munich, we have 50Mbit down with phone for 25eur a month

I am jealous. We pay equivalent to 40 euro a month for 5 Mbps

Do you have a monthly bandwidth cap?

smeezekitty wrote:

I am surprised it isn't more than 3 GB but still...I don't understand why you would render it at 4k. Maybe 1440p might make sense
but at 1600x1200 -> 2560 ... you can't just make resolution out of thin air

Maybe it was a bit more 😊

The bitrate is around 23Mbps. I know people don't understand why I render in 4K. I got the exact same reaction when I uploaded my very first DOS videos in 1080p. That was many years ago. In short you end up with better quality. I've done various tests and you just got to believe me, or not, but as I said, it doesn't matter, just watch in 480p, 720, or 1080p and you should still get very good quality.

There is no other high resolution option for 4:3 games to be honest. 1280 x 1024 compresses the image horizontally and that just leaves 1024 x 768 which has far less pixels than 1600 x 1200 (1600 x 1200 has over 2x as many pixels).

smeezekitty wrote:

I am jealous. We pay equivalent to 40 euro a month for 5 Mbps

Do you have a monthly bandwidth cap?

We don't have a cap on our current plan, but for some reason the telcos have decided to follow the idiotic US model of bandwidth caps for new contracts. This might prevent us from upgrading to fibre (100Mbit), because bandwidth caps are anti-consumer and the biggest load of bullshit out there... do not want.

I finally managed to get 1080p @60FPS working with zero dropped frames on Chrome.

I played around with the settings in chrome://flags which helped, but ultimately updating to the latest AMD "Omega" video drivers did the trick. The microstuttering (high framerate is useless if you have microstuttering) is very noticeable, and the CPU usage is skyhigh, so something's not right. The 64-Bit Chrome version performs a little better, but HTML5 video should be much more fluid and much less resource intensive.

I'm still wondering how it played very fluidly on an old Phenom II X4 with a low-end Radeon with old drivers in Chrome, but struggles on high-end machines. And I'm not the only one. I'm tempted to install Windows 8 on a temporary harddisk just to see what sort of performance I get with IE11 and 60FPS HTML5 video.

Just something to help the discussions regarding 30 fps vs 60 fps. Many believe or want us to believe that there is no difference but there clearly is.

I captured the Intro of F.E.A.R. at 30 and then at 60 fps, cut out a part that has a smooth scrolling section and put it together into a 60 fps clip.

IF the 60 fps section isn't butter smooth then try another player or try in full screen mode and without. For example on one of my systems Chrome in full screen doesn't play it smooth but IE does.

You need to watch this in 720p60 or 1080p60 mode.

Also the Play Station 4 supports it as well 😀

Let me know what you think!

30 vs 60 fps in Games

30 vs 60 fps alternate version

Good news for Firefox users. From the Firefox 36 Beta changelog:

Implemented a subset of the Media Source Extensions (MSE) API to allow native HTML5 playback on YouTube. Full support is on the way

The 60 fps support is coming. 😀

That's great news!

mockingbird wrote:

I'm tempted to install Windows 8 on a temporary harddisk just to see what sort of performance I get with IE11 and 60FPS HTML5 video.

60FPS HTML5 performance is impressive with IE11 under Win8.1. I was watching 60fps video on an otherwise slow-as-molasses 1.5GHz A4 laptop the other night and the motion was as smooth as what you'd get from say, TSN on cable. CPU usage was nice and low too--around 18%.

Sadly, under Win7 IE11 doesn't even seem to support HTLM5 video (at least on YouTube), and Chrome's 60fps performance is horrendous. Even 720p/60 completely maxed out my C2D E6600 (GTX 460). I don't think Chrome HTLM5 uses hardware acceleration on anything. 1080/60 is smooth as silk w/ low CPU usage on an i7, but that CPU can brute force its way through anything--even software decoded 4K.

You're wrong there. I could do 1080p/60fps with my Phenom II x6 1090T and 7950, but I had to swap the card for an old 5850 and suddenly 1080p/60fps drops a ton of frames. 720p/60 works just fine though.
Might have to start using IE11 for these until I get a new card.

Yup, 60 fps is great for my demos. The difference with the 1991 donut is striking: http://youtu.be/4ClrU-ne2Us
A 30 fps video doesn't do it justice at all. The scroller is jerky, while I put in a lot of effort to make it run perfectly smooth at 60 fps, even on a 4.77 MHz 8088 machine.
Likewise, my renderer uses 4-bit subpixel correction (same precision as many early hardware accelerators). At 30 fps you just don't see the extra smoothness that this precision adds. And the lighting is also more 'choppy' at 30 fps. So basically, it's like a completely different demo at 60 fps. So yay, you can finally see what it looks like on real hardware.

Only sad point is that you need to upload 720p or higher, and DOSBox doesn't output its videos like that. So I had to scale it up and re-encode before uploading.

MSE won't be enabled by default in Firefox 36 due to stability problems. Good job, Mozilla, good job. 😵

It's perfectly stable here 😐

Whenever I want to upload stuff to youtube I just give up because of being only limited to stupid quality presets. Why can't I upload 1440x1080 videos? or 480p60? Having to edit and re-encode good videos for better results.. meh.

I've uploaded 1440x1080 videos for years.

ZellSF wrote:

It's perfectly stable here 😐

Whenever I want to upload stuff to youtube I just give up because of being only limited to stupid quality presets. Why can't I upload 1440x1080 videos? or 480p60? Having to edit and re-encode good videos for better results.. meh.

I have to agree about the terrible presets. Why is quality rounded down?
I uploaded a video with strange dimensions (like 1200x600) and it got rounded down to 480p instead of up to 720p

Well, I just noticed that Youtube have converted all my movies to 60 FPS (the format they were recorded and uploaded in).

The bad news is that this failed on two videos, namely Wipeout and Mechwarrior 2 so they are not available in HD anymore. Anyone have any experience contacting Youtube to fix stuff like this?

An advantage of the upconversion seems to be that I got sound again in a few videos, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFxW9d-V5s
It was disabled for years since claims from Disney...

whao, whatched phil's videos.
Whao.
I can't see 30fps anymore 😁 It's to aweful.
Between higher res and 60fps, I'd go 60fps anytime.

(no frame problem here on my simple A10-6700 HTPC.)

I've got a few more:

720p60 vs 1080p30 in Racing Games

Quake II 60 fps Elgato Game Capture HD60

philscomputerlab wrote:

There are small stutters to be seen. I guess running the NTSC version would make more sense for 60 fps videos.

Okay, I've now decided to install chromium so I could see the 50/60fps videos, and took a look at the Pang video and had no stutters, everything played smoothly even on an older dual core CPU and no distinct video card, so it must be something with your setup. Though the 1080p here runs very slowly, either because HTML5 is inefficient or my PC's too slow.

philscomputerlab wrote:

What is your setup like marooned_on_mars?

What processor and graphics card? What OS and browser version?

Forgot to answer this one.
I'm on a Intel Pentium D 920 (@2.80MHz) with an Intel GMA 950 (hopefully I'll be able to get a video card by the end of this month). Now I'm on Debian Sid but then I was on Windows 7, and with IE11 IIRC. I used Chromium 41.0.2272, basically what's available in the unstable repos.

mockingbird wrote:

I'm still wondering how it played very fluidly on an old Phenom II X4 with a low-end Radeon with old drivers in Chrome, but struggles on high-end machines. And I'm not the only one. I'm tempted to install Windows 8 on a temporary harddisk just to see what sort of performance I get with IE11 and 60FPS HTML5 video.

You get better performance on HTML5 on Linux rather than Windows. Upgrading OSes (mainly commercial ones) usually does nothing except slow down your PC even further.

I added another video, this time in 60FPS. There isn't that much motion in it, but the marquee at the beginning and the map load routine should make it obvious: A Ressha De Ikou IV - PC-98 MT-32

EDIT: Just noticed that when I make the browser window smaller (reduce the size of the HTML5 player, the video looks almost exactly like the original (non-upscaled) video footage with the hard edges of the pixels and all that, cool 😁