Author Topic: 8k youtube  (Read 3666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blueskull

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12479
  • Country: cn
  • Power Electronics Guy
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2017, 07:51:42 am »
The decoder may be poorly multithreaded or theres some serial stuff which slows down decoding. Your CPU has lots of cores but base frequency of 2.2 ghz and boost at 3.6ghz

A Ryzen 6 core or higher will have base frequency at 3.2 ghz or higher .. r5 1400 (4/8) is 3.2 base /3.4 boost , 1500x (4/8) is 3.5/3.7, r5 1600x (6/12) is 3.6/4.0 .. even r7 1700 (8/16) is 3.0/3.7

2696v4 has 0.1GHz higher boost clock than 2699v4, reaching 3.7GHz in single core mode, 3.6GHz in dual core mode and 3.5GHz in quad, penta and hex core mode.
Usually, when no background tasks are running, it boosts to 3.5GHz, but rarely to 3.6GHz+, maybe because Windows always has something to do in the background.
But I do occasionally, though not often, see it boosts to 3.7GHz.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4784
  • Country: gb
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2017, 08:01:00 am »
Newer processors like let's say a six core or eight core Ryzen processor could probably decode 8K VP9 using the processor without dropped frames.

I experience crazy frame dropping and extreme sluggishness with my Xeon E5-2696v4 (OEM version of 2699v4, the third fastest CPU that can run on a consumer mobo, only next to i9-7980XE and TR 1950X), 64GB Reg ECC, Chrome, Windows 10 1703 64-bit.

In my earlier post, using Edge, my CPU was around 25% of one core on a 24C/48T dual E5-2696v2, so process CPU utilisation across the entire core footprint was just 1% on that 8K Youtube source.

I would add that I have a lot more success with Edge than I do with Chrome on 4K Youtube. At least I've found a use for Edge.

I did find some occasional bandwidth throttling going on somewhere upstream. Sometimes there seemed to be a 20Mbps or so limit on the streaming rate, which would come and go over the period of several minutes, with the local bandwidth still showing well over 220Mbps. This led to inevitable stutters, but didn't dramatically add to measured dropped frames, so I'd suggest it's mostly measure of frames lost to video processing limitations rather than bandwidth limitation.
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • Country: nl
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2017, 08:05:28 am »
Strange playback on i7 6700HQ here. It can play smoothly, but only for a short while until it starts to 'buffer' and freeze the image. It then fast forwards a few seconds, plays a few frames,etc.
747/1384 frames played
It's a very strange buffering issue, since I got a Gigabit up/down connection.
CPU was almost at 100% in Chrome, Manjaro Linux, NVIDIA Quadro M1000M although I doubt with Linux drivers ecosystem that card isn't doing much at all.


4K on YT has the advantage that a higher bitrate is processed internally until the final output renders are made, or so goes the rumor.

Still then, I think 4K is still very much a niche for media consumption. I got a 50" 4K TV with a dead pixel, but it's not visible with my eyes at a little bit above 1 meter. I sit 2 meters from the TV, and can't distinguish between 1080p and 4K content.
So then only the higher bitrate could be an advantage to getting a less compressed 1080p image.

Interestingly, LinusTechTips has a few videos documenting their 8K RED camera's, which is total overkill for YT and way overpriced eco system. Anyway, they say rendering 8K output is not the point, but with such high resolution you can re-frame, digitally stabilize, and zoom into video's with no appreciable loss in quality (up to a limit). Perhaps the same could be applied to 4K > 1080p
But losing 50/60fps is a great pain.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 08:07:57 am by hans »
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4784
  • Country: gb
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2017, 09:38:04 am »
I don't pretend to understand LTT's business model, but he seems to be able to fund a small army of individuals doing his video production, probably essential if you consider the sheer volume of his organisation's output, and that he seems to put a lot of emphasis on the technical production quality.

Now whether the RED cameras add enough value to justify themselves, certainly not. However bearing in mind the airplay he's given them I'd imagine he's not paying rack rate for these, nor pretty much everything his channels review.

A lot of channels have moved to the Panasonic Lumix GH5 which seems like a reasonable compromise for the price. There has been a lot of noise around the auto-focus system used in the GH5, although apart from for those doing daily vlogging diaries, most semi-serious content producers would be using a manual focus with the camera's built in tools such as focus peaking.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 11:54:54 am by Howardlong »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30122
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2017, 01:32:31 pm »
A lot of channels have moved to the Panasonic Lumix GH5 which seems like a reasonable compromise for the price. There has been a lot of noise around the auto-focus system used in the GH5, although apart from for those doing daily vlogging diaries, most semi-serious content producers would be using a manual focus with the camera's built in tools such as focus peaking.

For a channel like mine were a single video can have up to 100 or more clips, with dozens of different angles and focus distances, manually focusing would be a nightmare and productivity killer.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4784
  • Country: gb
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2017, 04:02:51 pm »
A lot of channels have moved to the Panasonic Lumix GH5 which seems like a reasonable compromise for the price. There has been a lot of noise around the auto-focus system used in the GH5, although apart from for those doing daily vlogging diaries, most semi-serious content producers would be using a manual focus with the camera's built in tools such as focus peaking.

For a channel like mine were a single video can have up to 100 or more clips, with dozens of different angles and focus distances, manually focusing would be a nightmare and productivity killer.

Understood, although it's not actually that hard. It is a little frustrating not to be able to trust it though. As mentioned, at least there are tools such as peaking on camera. I use the one off auto focus at the start of a shot and if it's peaked I leave it. It's quite a complex and configurable system, and that is at least part of the problem. It's bloody frustrating when you thought something was in focus, take some footage, and then realise in post it wasn't. In 4k, it's all the more noticeable too.

FWIW, Canon and Sony seem to have auto focus nailed, I assume the reason others don't use similar technologies is IP infringement.
 

Offline Howardlong

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4784
  • Country: gb
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2017, 09:38:33 pm »
A couple more data points.

A Ryzen 1800X at 4GHz with a GTX1080, 2% CPU utilisation (33% on a single thread), and the graphics card was at a pretty solid 85%. Zero frame drops, but still trouble on occasion with the stream itself. I also found it seemed to stutter even without any buffering going on.

i7-7700K at 5GHz, 9% CPU, no external GPU, 24% GPU load, zero frame drops, no problem streaming, consistent and just beautiful, by far the best experience (see pic attached).

All my tests were on the same flat LAN subnet though the same routers.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30122
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: 8k youtube
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2017, 02:32:04 pm »
Understood, although it's not actually that hard.

That's not the point.
It's also not hard to level the audio in every clip either, but only a fool would design their workflow so they had to do that.
Same thing with focusing, it might be easy, but it's an extra step in the workflow, and when you have to do it dozens of times per shoot, over hundreds of videos, that adds up to a lot of dicking around. And dicking around = annoyance, and annoyance leads to ultimatle frustration and reduced happiness. And all for no benefit when you can just get a proper camera with a decent autofocus.
When you produce content every day then you get to realise that the little stuff matters.

Example: everyone told me to try Adobe for video editing, so I tried it. Found I had to do an extra couple of mouse clicks for every clip in my timeline. Hundreds of extra clicks per video compared to my current workflow, screw that, no thanks, so I ditched it.

Quote
It's bloody frustrating when you thought something was in focus, take some footage, and then realise in post it wasn't.

It's bloody frustrating when you use manual focus and you forgot to set it in your haste to get a video finished and only find at editing that your content is unusable.
Leaving a camera on autofocus takes away that problem, no need to think and get it set right every time.

I'll use manual focus for some thing likes the whiteboard, so no risk of focus hunting, but on most other things autofocus (with peaking) is the bomb.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 02:40:34 pm by EEVblog »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf