> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS
Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries.
Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content?
(Note: in the table it's about support for HFR content, and does not necessarily mean that content is HFR.)
Anything with motion. Sports, games, vlogs, and so on experience immense improvements. And it's not like it takes 2x the bandwidth, because inter-frame compression can be smarter about it. It's like 30-50% more bandwidth.
I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".
I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
24fps is the worst part of film for me. I've watched a lot of films, and I made an effort to watch important and critically acclaimed ones. While I enjoyed a lot of it at the time, I don't really have any desire to watch any more, or to re-watch things I've already seen. The low framerate always drags me out of the story. Perhaps the only exceptions are the films of Yasujirō Ozu, which use so little motion that it's hard to see the low framerate.
I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did.
The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France.
Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube.
The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.
Right. And if a person knows they are shooting at 24fps they will take greater care to ensure they won’t pan too quickly. Panning too quickly is just bad video, whichever fps you choose.
No, panning quickly is done to give a high action feel.
24 FPS movies still do it, they just increase the exposure time so everything turns into a blurry mess - and often even that is not enough to hide the insufficient frame rate.
How fast you can pan also not only depends on the frame rate but also on the angular size of the screen so will be different for each fewer. Thus its better to use a higher frame rate to give more room to account for different viewing environments.
“Too quickly” is still quite slow, you can do a lot more comfortably at higher fps and it looks just fine. Also, I’m assuming you only mean movies and similar videos, not the other kinds of videos I mentioned?
Have you also decried the reduction in film grain, the addition of color and before that noises. All of those were claimed by people used to them to be essential to the film experience. Same for higher frame rates - if movies started using them more people would adjust to fix their preconceptions.
The neat thing is that 25fps content played out at 50fps doesn't use a lot more bandwidth than 25fps played out at 25fps because it only has to update every second frame, assuming identical noise between frames.
And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder".
It takes twice the file size to double the framerate without reducing visual quality of the original frames, whenever I try, with HEVC, AV1, etc. I can take a lower framerate video, run some software of constant size to interpolate the frames, and play back at a higher rate, but in practice I can't save that higher framerate video to a new mp4 file with small or constant size increase. It's got to be about linear.
Surely this is a limitation of the encoder or a configuration problem, as encoding a video with faster motion at equivalent quality ordinarily requires a higher bit rate, and from the standpoint of the encoder, I wouldn't expect there to be a difference between half the frame rate and everything moving twice as fast.
Are you doubling up frames for 25fps-in-50fps though? Because with long-GOP codecs like HEVC there ought to be just about no difference between pairs of frames. For sure with intra-only codecs twice the frame rate will be twice the file size.
More like a "canny valley", you're accustomed to movies looking like movies, not windows into reality.
You probably don't get the same feeling when watching live events.
I have a similar problem with 3D movies, shallow focus drives me nuts, because unlike in a 2D movie, I expect whatever I'm looking directly at in 3D to be in focus.
Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen.
I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.
40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled.
TVs will almost certainly support either those frame-rates or a multiple of them like 119.88. And some even support variable frame rates so a "120 Hz" mode could display effective any frame-rate below that with precise timings.
No, not very many people would say that. Console games for many years were 30 FPS tops, and people were just fine with it. It's only a small but vocal minority that insists on 60 FPS as some kind of minimum.
They didn't have a choice. It was literally "be fine with it" or "don't play most games". Console players complain now if a game only runs 30fps, because you can't really go back. It's just not possible to play some genres at 30fps.
This whole discussion makes me think of the old days, when I had a really outdated computer. I was playing Counter-Strike semi-competitively at around 15 FPS, and I didn’t see anything wrong with it...
Especially retro console games, where sprites might flicker at 60Hz (either to create an illusion of translucency or because of hardware limits on simultaneous sprites displayed); viewing footage at 30fps can end up catching all the "off" frames and make screen elements disappear completely.
I don't watch too many of those, and those few that I do are more 4X (Civ, Stellaris, etc), so that maybe that's why I don't notice it as an advantage for most of the content I see.
At that, captured video of these things can be a total pain in the hoop to edit because OBS, Gamebar et al will write them as variable framerate files, only writing a frame with a suitably distant presentation timestamp when something changes.
And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.
Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around.
And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.
Of course there is. A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. And mixing two fixed frame rate sources with different framerates would naturally produce a VFR video and with current editing software you need to destroy some of the source information or interpolate some slop to make it work. There is no good reason for editing software to have these limitations either when most players and all modern video containers have caught up and are VFR-first with a fixed frame rate hint in the headers if you're lucky.
> A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced.
How do you figure that?
Broadcast TV is very very very very firmly locked to 25 interlaced frames per second (or 29.97ish in the US where they have to do everything with funny numbers), interlaced to 50 (59.94 US) fields per second.
I'll take 60 over 30 any day of the week, assuming the original was mastered that way (interpolation is fake and bad). Even for just talking head videos, 60 looks better to my eyes. The lower frame rate of films and most other content looking better seems to be nothing but a (sub)conscious 'that's the way it should look' attitude to me.
Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic.
For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wasted and could be just fine at 12/15fps.
12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...at 144p.) Even for literally just watching someone sit and move lips, 24/30 is gonna look much more natural and believable, and not be jarring unlike going down to that low fps. Like, have you actually watched any 12/15 fps footage of people talking recently? Cause it's not gonna be giving what you think it's giving. It's not gonna look "fine" even at crystal clear 1080, making it feel like a shitty zoom call that might as well be in 240p. Unfortunately there is a reason why it's not a cool and totally useable life hack to just crank it down to 12, because it just looks bad. Some people in these comments really seem to be just saying things before they even try and see them with their own eyes.
Back then, all broadcasters had to conform to ATSC 1.0 MPEG2 transport and MPEG2 encoding due to terrestrial broadcasts. The choices were 480i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p.
12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).
There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.
How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? The frames should be highly correlated and as long as you only add p-frames, the data needed should be pretty small, no?
People have what you might call a comparison disease. Once something can be compared with something that is "better" in some metric, most people are unable to think about whether or not the "lesser" version is sufficient. All they can think about is that the "better" one exists.
There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?
Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto.
One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.
Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)
There are only 5-10 countries in the world that I know of that don’t have mobile data caps. The vast majority of the HN demographic do not live in those countries.
The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.
I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.
> If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.
If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size.
If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there.
But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.
Something else going on? Mysterious. I think people just care about and pay attention to different things. I don't think I've ever cared about this resolution difference in video. I prefer greater frame rates though.
Yes, my vision tests are fine.
On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things.
Are you joking? Most people don't notice a difference between 480i and 1080p when blown up on a large TV in their living room. I know this from experience having worked at a satellite TV provider and hearing actual customer feedback.
Not at all. If you toggle between SD and HD in front of them, it's plain to see.
But if you tuned to a random channel, most people couldn't tell you if what they are looking at is SD or HD. "It's all digital, right?"
Again, if you then swapped to the HD version, they would immediately notice.
But we had so many stories of installers visiting customers homes on service calls to be confronted by massive TVs displaying 480i or 480p. And the customer as happy as can be with the picture quality.
And there were two version of this; (a) Two physical channels, one channel SD and one channel HD, and (b) a single HD channel and the DVR is can be set to down convert to SD.
There is not one single video I've seen where it's better at 60 FPS, so I dispute your assertion. I actually find 60 FPS videos to be kind of bizarre and unpleasant to watch.
Any cases are like that because it looks more natural and fluid, but it's just not for you, though in that case how would cases help change your stylistic preferences?
I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades
Same id numbers you use when downloading them. While you might know what a particular URL is available in, I’m not sure I’ve seen an encyclopedic enumeration of the possibilities
3840 keeps the aspect ratio 16:9. 1920 is not 2k. 2048/2000 would be 2k, 4096/4000 would be 4k. That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160. In the film world, it was often referred to as having 2k scans but being delivered HD instead since it was most often scanned to video tape. Not everyone was able to deliver digital files (DPX sequences) at true 2k, and less were able to accept them. So 2k just became interchangeable as HD deliverables in the film/video realm.
> That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160.
Display manufacturers, streaming companies and home video distributors all use 4K in their labeling for not truly 4 thousand pixel wide resolutions. As do most random people that talk about the resolution. Yes, the UHD label is often included in a cover-your-ass way but 4K is very much being what 3840x2160 is being called in a lot of places.
Are you asking if youtube having different formats is making yt-dlp break? If that's your question, the answer is no. If you're asking something else, please explain the question better.
no, I assume they're asking if this is tangically a related post towards the recent effort of yt-dlp 403s; the 403s are happening on specific format IDs because youtube is now starting to block and control access to different format IDs based on cookies, clients, and a few other things to try to limit how you can download videos and audio streams.
> HFR stands for "High Framerate", which means up to 60 FPS, whereas non-HFR is limited to 30 FPS
Personally I find most ((almost?) all?) >30fps generally unnecessary and just chews through bandwidth, monthly (mobile) data caps, and processing/batteries.
Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content?
(Note: in the table it's about support for HFR content, and does not necessarily mean that content is HFR.)
Anything with motion. Sports, games, vlogs, and so on experience immense improvements. And it's not like it takes 2x the bandwidth, because inter-frame compression can be smarter about it. It's like 30-50% more bandwidth.
I'd personally rather watch 480p60 than 1080p30. There's a lot of material in which spatial resolution is mostly irrelevant (e.g. presentations, which involve people talking and slides designed to be legible from a distance), but low framerate always looks unnatural and distracting, even after speeding it up by 1.75x or 2x. 60fps should be considered a bare minimum, not "high framerate".
I’m the opposite. I take videos with 24fps, the standard for film. Lower frame rate gives me that film-like look which suggests sophistication, but 60fps feels like unedited screen grab or raw footage from a camcorder. I can’t explain it: it could be a case of acquired taste.
24fps is the worst part of film for me. I've watched a lot of films, and I made an effort to watch important and critically acclaimed ones. While I enjoyed a lot of it at the time, I don't really have any desire to watch any more, or to re-watch things I've already seen. The low framerate always drags me out of the story. Perhaps the only exceptions are the films of Yasujirō Ozu, which use so little motion that it's hard to see the low framerate.
I have a similar reaction to music from the early 70s and earlier. But if the sound quality is good, I still enjoy listening to new music and re-listening to things I've already heard. I think I'd still be interested in film if they'd actually taken advantage of improved technology like the musicians did.
The most enjoyable film-watching experience in my life was watching 60fps Showscan shorts at Futuroscope in France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futuroscope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan
Movies are made by professional videographers that take care to limit the downsides of low fps, such as stuttering (still, sometimes movies will pan too fast and the stuttering makes it painful for me to watch). YouTube is very different, there are lots of amateurs and many of the videos don't need to make people feel like it's a movie. It doesn't seem the soap opera effect really applies when it's just a guy showing actual real life (and there's no interlacing like with old soap operas). For this reason, I've always found 60fps better on YouTube. Lower fps doesn't look more sophisticated imo, it usually looks worse unless it happens to be done by a good videographer that wants it to look like a movie. It's especially terrible for things like action content (mountain biking, karting) or things like fps games, where the higher frame rate helps a ton with all the fast motion. This happens to be a lot of what I watch on YouTube.
The way I see it, unless you are specifically going for the "movie" look and take care to work around low fps like videographers do for movies, then higher fps is probably better.
Right. And if a person knows they are shooting at 24fps they will take greater care to ensure they won’t pan too quickly. Panning too quickly is just bad video, whichever fps you choose.
No, panning quickly is done to give a high action feel.
24 FPS movies still do it, they just increase the exposure time so everything turns into a blurry mess - and often even that is not enough to hide the insufficient frame rate.
How fast you can pan also not only depends on the frame rate but also on the angular size of the screen so will be different for each fewer. Thus its better to use a higher frame rate to give more room to account for different viewing environments.
“Too quickly” is still quite slow, you can do a lot more comfortably at higher fps and it looks just fine. Also, I’m assuming you only mean movies and similar videos, not the other kinds of videos I mentioned?
Same vibe as preferring black-and-white cinema, or analogue (and/or mono) audio.
Have you also decried the reduction in film grain, the addition of color and before that noises. All of those were claimed by people used to them to be essential to the film experience. Same for higher frame rates - if movies started using them more people would adjust to fix their preconceptions.
The neat thing is that 25fps content played out at 50fps doesn't use a lot more bandwidth than 25fps played out at 25fps because it only has to update every second frame, assuming identical noise between frames.
And then you can go to field-per-frame 50fps footage when you need to say "camcorder".
It takes twice the file size to double the framerate without reducing visual quality of the original frames, whenever I try, with HEVC, AV1, etc. I can take a lower framerate video, run some software of constant size to interpolate the frames, and play back at a higher rate, but in practice I can't save that higher framerate video to a new mp4 file with small or constant size increase. It's got to be about linear.
Surely this is a limitation of the encoder or a configuration problem, as encoding a video with faster motion at equivalent quality ordinarily requires a higher bit rate, and from the standpoint of the encoder, I wouldn't expect there to be a difference between half the frame rate and everything moving twice as fast.
Are you doubling up frames for 25fps-in-50fps though? Because with long-GOP codecs like HEVC there ought to be just about no difference between pairs of frames. For sure with intra-only codecs twice the frame rate will be twice the file size.
yeah
strangely 50-60fps feels "unnatural" In a way? like uncanny valley sometimes?
More like a "canny valley", you're accustomed to movies looking like movies, not windows into reality.
You probably don't get the same feeling when watching live events.
I have a similar problem with 3D movies, shallow focus drives me nuts, because unlike in a 2D movie, I expect whatever I'm looking directly at in 3D to be in focus.
Yes, that's also why depth of field effects in games always look wrong and distracting.
Gaming footage/videos, some games are so fast they are noticeably better to play at (and watch at) 60fps over 30fps.
I think many people would consider 60fps to be a minimum and 30fps to be almost disorienting, even for casual games.
Gamers often go for 120-240Hz monitors even.
Last time I went to the movies I didn't have a good time watching "motion" at 24Hz on a large screen while used to watch motion at 240Hz on a small screen.
I felt I was looking at a powerpoint presentation or an animation made at the edge of a (paper) notebook.
The cinematic obsession with 24 FPS is so stupid…
But those are 24 real frames. Not predicted ones like in your favourite Youtube video.
40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.
40fps is probably 30fps with poor frame pacing. Most displays are 60Hz so there’s no benefit to being any non fraction of that, and you are likely to have issues with pacing if you are at a non standard frame rate.
> Most displays are 60Hz
This was true even a couple years ago, but these days, most mid-range and above TVs [0], phones [1], and monitors [2] support 120Hz, which is a nice integer multiple of 40Hz. But lots of these devices default to 60Hz (or slower), so you can't really rely on most people having this enabled.
[0]: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/table/196699
[1]: https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nDisplayFramesMin=120
[2]: https://blurbusters.com/faq/120hz-monitors/
But not of 23.976 or 29.97, alas.
TVs will almost certainly support either those frame-rates or a multiple of them like 119.88. And some even support variable frame rates so a "120 Hz" mode could display effective any frame-rate below that with precise timings.
No, not very many people would say that. Console games for many years were 30 FPS tops, and people were just fine with it. It's only a small but vocal minority that insists on 60 FPS as some kind of minimum.
> and people were just fine with it.
They didn't have a choice. It was literally "be fine with it" or "don't play most games". Console players complain now if a game only runs 30fps, because you can't really go back. It's just not possible to play some genres at 30fps.
This whole discussion makes me think of the old days, when I had a really outdated computer. I was playing Counter-Strike semi-competitively at around 15 FPS, and I didn’t see anything wrong with it...
Console gamers would say that mandatory spankings improved the experience if the marketing told them so.
Speak for yourself bud.
Especially retro console games, where sprites might flicker at 60Hz (either to create an illusion of translucency or because of hardware limits on simultaneous sprites displayed); viewing footage at 30fps can end up catching all the "off" frames and make screen elements disappear completely.
Yes, or in general everything that was originally 30 FPS interlaced should be de-interlaced to 60 FPS progressive video and not 30 FPS.
Oh, I somehow completely forgot about interlacing having been a thing.
I don't watch too many of those, and those few that I do are more 4X (Civ, Stellaris, etc), so that maybe that's why I don't notice it as an advantage for most of the content I see.
If there isn't much movement, it's probably a modest increase in bitrate anyway as the codec will see that most frames aren't changing.
At that, captured video of these things can be a total pain in the hoop to edit because OBS, Gamebar et al will write them as variable framerate files, only writing a frame with a suitably distant presentation timestamp when something changes.
And this will make most NLE software shit its legs off.
Improve software? It's job is to serve video editors, not the other way around. And it's a fun task, I bet there might be a dev or two who's working on that right now. And if someone is ready to pay for them, even better.
There is absolutely no reason for any sane video editing software to be able to read VFR files.
It should, however, reject them gracefully but positively.
I read that last bit in Hank Hill's voice.
We sell codecs and codec accessories.
Of course there is. A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced. And mixing two fixed frame rate sources with different framerates would naturally produce a VFR video and with current editing software you need to destroy some of the source information or interpolate some slop to make it work. There is no good reason for editing software to have these limitations either when most players and all modern video containers have caught up and are VFR-first with a fixed frame rate hint in the headers if you're lucky.
> A lot of older TV shows are effectively variable frame rates when properly detelecined/deinterlaced.
How do you figure that?
Broadcast TV is very very very very firmly locked to 25 interlaced frames per second (or 29.97ish in the US where they have to do everything with funny numbers), interlaced to 50 (59.94 US) fields per second.
How could that in any way be VFR?
Playing at low framrates is a lot worse than just watching though.
The main limitation on YouTube for fast movement is actually bitrate. Perhaps they allow higher bitrates for 60FPS videos though.
I'll take 60 over 30 any day of the week, assuming the original was mastered that way (interpolation is fake and bad). Even for just talking head videos, 60 looks better to my eyes. The lower frame rate of films and most other content looking better seems to be nothing but a (sub)conscious 'that's the way it should look' attitude to me.
Sports is a good use of HFR. Sadly, when HD broadcast came out, most broadcasters choose 1080i59.4 to remain compatible with the interlaced HD CRTs that were around. One of them chose 720p60 for sports. As cool as HD was, it still had interlacing as a boat anchor chained to it. 4K finally saw the elimination of interlacing, but that's veering way off topic.
For talking head/creator type of stuff, 24fps is probably wasted and could be just fine at 12/15fps.
12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...at 144p.) Even for literally just watching someone sit and move lips, 24/30 is gonna look much more natural and believable, and not be jarring unlike going down to that low fps. Like, have you actually watched any 12/15 fps footage of people talking recently? Cause it's not gonna be giving what you think it's giving. It's not gonna look "fine" even at crystal clear 1080, making it feel like a shitty zoom call that might as well be in 240p. Unfortunately there is a reason why it's not a cool and totally useable life hack to just crank it down to 12, because it just looks bad. Some people in these comments really seem to be just saying things before they even try and see them with their own eyes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49455895
Fox Sports was 720p.
Back then, all broadcasters had to conform to ATSC 1.0 MPEG2 transport and MPEG2 encoding due to terrestrial broadcasts. The choices were 480i/p, 720p, or 1080i/p.
12/15fps is way too low even for talking heads. 20fps would be the minimum for me, and 24fps fits better with the standards (30fps fits better with most displays).
yeah, it was more of a way of showing my disdain for said content and wasting of electrons pushing bandwidth
There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.
How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate? The frames should be highly correlated and as long as you only add p-frames, the data needed should be pretty small, no?
> How much extra bandwidth does it even take to double the framerate?
For <insert your favourite streaming provider here> ? No extra bandwidth. They just increase the number of predicted frames.
People have what you might call a comparison disease. Once something can be compared with something that is "better" in some metric, most people are unable to think about whether or not the "lesser" version is sufficient. All they can think about is that the "better" one exists.
There are people who would be unable to sit through a movie at DVD quality, or at 1080p, but what do they think people in the past did? Was everyone who watched movies on VHS or DVD just enduring pure suffering? No movie has ever been enjoyed at resolutions lower than [current standard]?
Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto.
One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.
Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)
> monthly (mobile) data caps
Are we back in the early 2000s or something?
There are only 5-10 countries in the world that I know of that don’t have mobile data caps. The vast majority of the HN demographic do not live in those countries.
The remainder either have an explicit hard cap or some kind of fair use clause that throttles when you reach some undisclosed amount.
Right, but in most countries the data cap is so high you'd never hit it.
I'm not on even a particularly expensive or specialised deal on my phone here in the UK and the cap is something like 1TB.
>Are there specific cases where "HFR" videos are really improving the viewing experience of particular (types of) content?
Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.
> Yes. Every single one. It's that simple.
I've found that zero of the videos that I've ever seen that were 60fps improved things: certainly if I went full screen I could notice the resolution of 1080@60 versus 720@30, but in a standard browser window it was none.
If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.
> If you don’t even see the difference between 1080p and 720p, there’s something else going on.
If I open a browser window and click on a YT video suggested on the main page, it plays on small portion of the screen of my 14" MacBook: there is little practical visual difference between 720 and 1080 at that 'video box' size.
If I open the same video on my 27" 5K iMac and full screen it there, then yes, there is a difference between 720 and 1080 (and 4K) there.
But I find 60fps does not improve the content / experience in any situation.
[flagged]
Something else going on? Mysterious. I think people just care about and pay attention to different things. I don't think I've ever cared about this resolution difference in video. I prefer greater frame rates though.
Yes, my vision tests are fine.
On the other hand, when I see a video where someone's talking is recording from across the room with a camera mic in an untreated room, I'll just turn it off. I guess I'm a big snob for certain audio things.
Video resolution though? Never cared.
Are you joking? Most people don't notice a difference between 480i and 1080p when blown up on a large TV in their living room. I know this from experience having worked at a satellite TV provider and hearing actual customer feedback.
Are most customers 70 year old? You should get your drivers license revoked if you don’t notice that difference.
Not at all. If you toggle between SD and HD in front of them, it's plain to see.
But if you tuned to a random channel, most people couldn't tell you if what they are looking at is SD or HD. "It's all digital, right?"
Again, if you then swapped to the HD version, they would immediately notice.
But we had so many stories of installers visiting customers homes on service calls to be confronted by massive TVs displaying 480i or 480p. And the customer as happy as can be with the picture quality.
And there were two version of this; (a) Two physical channels, one channel SD and one channel HD, and (b) a single HD channel and the DVR is can be set to down convert to SD.
Finally found the person who was the target audience for garbage consoles claiming 30fps gaming is the norm. That makes one. :D
There is not one single video I've seen where it's better at 60 FPS, so I dispute your assertion. I actually find 60 FPS videos to be kind of bizarre and unpleasant to watch.
Any cases are like that because it looks more natural and fluid, but it's just not for you, though in that case how would cases help change your stylistic preferences?
I mean, even for the obvious highly dynamic videos like some sports and video games it's not like you can't enjoy the bad old 24fps people have been enjoying for decades
I feel like I'm missing some context. Cool that there's someone cataloging this though.
Same id numbers you use when downloading them. While you might know what a particular URL is available in, I’m not sure I’ve seen an encyclopedic enumeration of the possibilities
"4320p"? Huh:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution
Just think of multiples of 1080p. 4K => 2160p and is 4x larger than HD. 8K => 4230p and is 16x larger than HD.
1080p of course is the height at the proper 16:9 aspect ratio of 1920 wide image. It just moves up from there keeping the same aspect.
Yes and also "4K" and "8K" can mean different resolutions depending on who you are talking to, e.g. 3840 pixels wide or actually 4000 pixels wide.
3840 keeps the aspect ratio 16:9. 1920 is not 2k. 2048/2000 would be 2k, 4096/4000 would be 4k. That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160. In the film world, it was often referred to as having 2k scans but being delivered HD instead since it was most often scanned to video tape. Not everyone was able to deliver digital files (DPX sequences) at true 2k, and less were able to accept them. So 2k just became interchangeable as HD deliverables in the film/video realm.
> That is why it is called UHD and not 4k when the resolution is 3840x2160.
Display manufacturers, streaming companies and home video distributors all use 4K in their labeling for not truly 4 thousand pixel wide resolutions. As do most random people that talk about the resolution. Yes, the UHD label is often included in a cover-your-ass way but 4K is very much being what 3840x2160 is being called in a lot of places.
Is this in anyway related to the 403 issue with yt-dlp that's been happening for at least a week?
Are you asking if youtube having different formats is making yt-dlp break? If that's your question, the answer is no. If you're asking something else, please explain the question better.
no, I assume they're asking if this is tangically a related post towards the recent effort of yt-dlp 403s; the 403s are happening on specific format IDs because youtube is now starting to block and control access to different format IDs based on cookies, clients, and a few other things to try to limit how you can download videos and audio streams.
I updated to yt-dlp nightly and that fixed it for me, was a few days back now so idk if there's been further disruption:
yt-dlp --update-to nightly