Talk:YouTube

A medium of artistic exchange/collaboration

Another very important aspect about Youtube is that it allows the users to use the tool as a medium of exchange in artistic pursuit where the term "art" is open. Often, in the case of online communities dedicated to art, Youtube is used as a way to exchange visual demonstrations of art and hobbies. An example of this could be how accounts like Expert Village post up how-to tutorials. Youtube can also be used as a medium for artists to present brand new discoveries. As a juggler, I have experienced this aspect of Youtube with fellow jugglers when they present new tricks and videos.

Hungarian version

The Hungarian version of YouTube is released: April 28, 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/?gl=HU&hl=hu)

Formats

It has proved difficult to list all of the formats used on YouTube, and the table has been slimmed down to prevent it from becoming too large and complicated. There is also a good deal of original research in the table, although it is broadly accurate. How a YouTube video gets encoded depends on the resolution of the original upload, and whether it was a 4:3 or 16:9 video. For example, this video is available at nine different quality levels, which can be seen here. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for reverting this edit is not that it is totally wrong, but that the table does not pretend to be an exhaustive list of all the formats on YouTube. The video mentioned at [1] is offered by default at 640x360p, which is fmt34. However, as Keepvid shows at [2], there are other versions, including fmt5, which is 400x226p. The fmt5 versions are a bit of a puzzle, because they are not normally offered via the standard player interface, although the Philips test pattern mentioned does have 240p in the options. Here is the MediaInfo for the fmt5 version:

Overall bit rate  : 326 Kbps httphostheader  : v7.lscache7.c.youtube.com

Video Format  : H.263 Duration  : 5mn 58s Bit rate  : 258 Kbps Width  : 400 pixels Height  : 226 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16:9 Frame rate  : 29.970 fps Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.095 Stream size  : 11.0 MiB (79%)

Audio Format  : MPEG Audio Format version  : Version 2 Format profile  : Layer 3 Mode  : Joint stereo Mode extension  : MS Stereo Duration  : 5mn 58s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 59.7 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Sampling rate  : 22.05 KHz Bit depth  : 16 bits Video delay  : -33ms Stream size  : 2.55 MiB (18%)

Not all videos have the 240p option, so this is something new. YouTube is prone to changing the formats without telling anyone, so this needs to be watched. For the moment, 360p is the default option in the player.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube appears to have changed their video formats last night and renamed a few of their other formats: 320p was renamed to 240p (default format &fmt=34), 480p was renamed to 320p (&fmt=18), and &fmt=35 has gone public in the form of 480p now, which I'm glad they did, as it's far more accurate. That said, it appears they've launched another 480p format as well that isn't &fmt=35--it's still the same resolution as &fmt=35 but appears to have a higher audio and visual quality--any ideas on what this new format number is? In any event, my best guess is the new 480p format is going to replace the old 480p (&fmt=35) format...I'd be willing to bet it's MP4. I'd also like to note that all formats now support both 4:3 and 16:9, though I have yet to run across a non-widescreen 720p or 1080p video; this is likely something that needs to be changed.

YouTube seems to have revamped the player options in the last day or so. Some now have 240p as well as the "standard" 360p and 480p (eg here). The reasons for this are unclear, and it is worth noting that the fmt5 version above uses H.263 video and MP3 audio. This is a real puzzle, since YouTube spent a lot of time re-encoding its library to H.264/AAC during early 2009. The widescreen videos are 16:9 by default, but the lower resolutions can vary depending on whether the source was 4:3 or 16:9. I am still trying to make sense of all of this without too much WP:OR creeping into the article, but it looks as though there have been some changes to the way in which the player presents the different options.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused by the 240p; YouTube hasn't really added any new formats; they've just renamed them. What they used to call 360p prior to yesterday's change is now called 240p, what was called 480p is now called 360p, and what is called 480p is merely the official introduction of format 35 (some videos though, seem to want to use a new unknown format, which I find odd). I think the confusion you have is because YouTube improperly labeled their video formats in the past; calling videos that were not 480p "480p"; again, the 240p is not new; it's YouTube default format, they're just properly labeling it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.68.197 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me just state that my Accepting of this IP's changes to the format on the page is not an endorsement of the correctness of the change. It is only an endorsement of the fact that the change appears to be in good faith, and not vandalism, as evidenced by their discussion here and edit notes. This Pending Changes stuff will take some getting used to. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To try and make some sense of all of this, I downloaded two videos with &fmt=34 added to the URL, to make sure that it was the fmt34 version. This video (which is 4:3) came out at 320x240px, although it is confusingly labelled as 360p by the YouTube player. This 16:9 video came out at 640x360px, which was expected. The 4:3 fmt34 videos do not seem to be 640x480px, so the change was correct. It is a pity that the current table does not give 640x360px for fmt34 widescreen, but it has been slimmed down in the past to prevent it from becoming too complicated. The table may need a reworking, but it is difficult to put in all of the fmt values for normal and widescreen videos without cluttering the table.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

YouTube also support uploading (and conversion) of files in the MTS container directly (AVCHD, used by many Sony, Canon and Panasonic cameras). 82.168.66.131 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or .M2TS extension, which is the same extension.

Framerate

Just FYI: YouTube accepts PAL (i.e. 25 frames/sec) as well, and will play back in this framerate too if the uploaded original is encoded with the proper standards. In the table here only 30 fps/variable are being mentioned, that simply isn't complete at all. YouTube doesn't even seem to alter framerate from the source, as far as my testing has shown. As long as you stay at or below 30 fps, YouTube picks the rate of the original video. Even though I've done my tests about 2 years ago, I still see my videos are unchanged regarding frames/sec. and don't see why YT would have a reason to do so. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

4k format

YouTube recently began supporting a new 4k format (fmt38) with 4096x3072 resolution (CNET news story) that can be added to the chart. I don't know all the specs, but I know the container is MP4 and most other specs should be like 1080p (except 4 times bigger). Jake3373 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Life in the Garden (4k resolution) is encoded as follows:

Complete name  : Life in the Garden (4k resolution).mp4 Format  : MPEG-4 Codec ID  : mp42 Overall bit rate  : 6 567 Kbps

Video ID  : 2 Format  : AVC Format/Info  : Advanced Video Codec Format profile  : High@L5.1 Format settings, CABAC  : No Format settings, ReFrames  : 1 frame Codec ID  : avc1 Codec ID/Info  : Advanced Video Coding Duration  : 1mn 53s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 6 445 Kbps Maximum bit rate  : 19.4 Mbps Width  : 4 096 pixels Height  : 2 304 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 16/9 Frame rate mode  : Constant Frame rate  : 23.976 fps Resolution  : 24 bits Colorimetry  : 4:2:0 Scan type  : Progressive Bits/(Pixel*Frame)  : 0.028 Stream size  : 87.4 MiB (98%) Title  : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42

Audio ID  : 1 Format  : AAC Format/Info  : Advanced Audio Codec Format version  : Version 4 Format profile  : LC Format settings, SBR  : No Codec ID  : 40 Duration  : 1mn 53s Bit rate mode  : Variable Bit rate  : 119 Kbps Maximum bit rate  : 178 Kbps Channel(s)  : 2 channels Channel positions  : L R Sampling rate  : 48.0 KHz Resolution  : 16 bits Stream size  : 1.62 MiB (2%) Title  : (C) 2007 Google Inc. v08.13.2007. Encoded date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42 Tagged date  : UTC 2010-06-23 04:45:42

The 6 567 Kbps bit rate is considerable, and I could not get smooth playback on my connection. This seems to be a trial run, and there are not many videos on YouTube with this format. The table tries to stick to the main formats, but this should be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the format should be labeled as "2304p". When you go to YouTube and use their flash video player, the option is named "Original", and it's supposed to serve you the video in its original format if playable by flash, so it could be 4K, lower or higher. --85.152.206.242 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Original" means the full size version. For the 16:9 videos, this is 4096x2304 px. The table has been changed to 4K, because this is the WP:COMMONNAME for this type of video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors please be aware that there are multiple "4K" resolutions in existence (just check the 4K article), but the one supported by YouTube is 4096x2304, NOT 4096x3072. I've had to undo one edit (in good faith, I'm sure) to this tune, and I'm afraid this confusion may repeat itself in the foreseeable future. In any case, if anyone claims to have seen a 4096x3072 H.264 video sample, I'd be pleasantly surprised, as such a resolution would be an invalid H.264 stream! C xong (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The fireworks video here is indeed 4096x3072px with H.264 video. This is an "unofficial" 4K video, because the official YouTube 4K videos are widescreen 4096x2304px.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected; this is really interesting. According to the H.264 spec, this video exceeds the highest level (5.1), but other than that it's a perfectly valid stream. I wonder if, for example, the PS3 plays it? C xong (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Flagging

Apparently, some people have begun filing fake copyright claims on fair use game guide videos (someone claimed to have ownership of someone else's VOICE). The victims promptly (an unfairly) have their accounts suspended by youtube. should we note that youtube doesn't actually check to see whether flagged videos were legitimately flagged? Basically, they block first, ask questions later. Here are my sources: http://bulbanews.bulbagarden.net/wiki/False_copyright_claims_suspend_Chuggaaconroy,_others_from_YouTube http://www.zeldauniverse.net/gamingnintendo-news/chuggaaconroy-others-suspended-from-youtube-by-false-copyright-claims/ --Chaos of Air, ONLINE (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in more depth in Criticism of YouTube. There have been complaints about frivolous or bullying DMCA takedown notices in the past, but at some point the complainant would have to provide hard evidence of ownership of the video. Anyone who has a video taken down for copyright reasons can appeal against the decision.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Time limit removal experimentation

I believe that YouTube is currently cherry-picking YouTube users who are in good community guidelines and copyright standing to try uploading videos longer than 10 minutes since February 2010. However, I don't know much else about it. mechamind90 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests from some users, YouTube has stuck with the 10 minute limit for ordinary accounts since March 2006.[3] Without sourcing, it is hard to say anything about the suggestion above in the article. Only partner accounts (or the rare and obsolete director's accounts) can upload videos longer than 10 minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/07/upload-limit-increases-to-15-minutes.html Mikus (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Interlacing

What does YouTube do with interlaced sources? Mind you, I'm in PAL country here, and if I upload a 25i 720x576 file, what I get is a 25p 480p with no interlacing artefacts from re-scaling. Now, this might not be much of an issue, but the apparent deinterlacing process seems to generate some issues particularly with NTSC. For one, but that's just a vague guess, it seems that far more NTSC videos on YouTube exhibit blurred fields, while on the other hand, all the NTSC videos I've downloaded from YouTube are 30fps, not 29.97fps. The difference is crucial even if no blurred fields are visible, as it can cause issues with encoding to an NTSC MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 for a DVD as those versions of MPEG don't support 30fps sharp, only 29.97fps, so many encoders will just plain refuse to encode these files (MPlayer's Mencoder does for me, for instance, telling me that 30fps is not supported by the official MPEG specs). Plus, there are some people (that I don't belong to myself) that cry after the increased temporal resolution you lose by getting rid of each second field by whatever means. --79.193.23.200 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no NTSC and PAL anymore as these are analog standards. 60Hz digital video can be shot, loaded and displayed as either 30.00fps or 29.97fps. I haven't tried uploading 25i, but 30i videos are definitely deinterlaced with blending fields, resulting in blurring, ghosting and combing. I deinterlace my videos myself with "single field" method. I don't think that YT is more intelligent when it comes to 25i, or that 25i is easier to deinterlace than 30i. I might do some experimenting, but what is the point? I will be blamed in OR. Mikus (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Launch date

Please can someone correct the UK launch date of 19th July 2007 as I myself have been a registered user since before that date (2006). It appears that somebody has erroneously specified the France launch date, or so it would seem from the reference hyperlink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.95.74 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The information in the article seems to be correct. YouTube was launched in 2005, and people could sign up for accounts, but the first round of regional versions was launched in June 2007, which included the UK, France and several other countries.[4] The main purpose of the local versions is to offer local content specific to the country involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Table

It is difficult to squeeze all of the resolutions into the table and guarantee that it is up to date. The bit rates were removed because they were qualified with a note saying that they were only estimates, which makes them at best a piece of WP:OR. The aspect ratio part of the table could do with some clarification, but it is complicated when some of the formats are capable of playing at 4:3 and 16:9.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I put bitrates back. It is important piece of info, please do not delete. If you like, I can search for more links. Yes, my original modification included some OR because I have downloaded quite a few of YT videos in different resolutions. But I've heard about 2Mbps for 720p and 3.5Mbps for 1080p long before I started using MediaInfo myself. Mikus (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The bit rates are important, but the problem is running into original research. It is not ideal to have to qualify the bit rates by saying that they are based on OR and are only approximate estimates, which reduces their value as a reliable source. As you point out, it is hard to pin down the exact bit rate of YouTube videos with MediaInfo, because it does tend to vary according to the content of the video. People have carried out their own experiments like this in the past, but they have a strong element of OR which is against Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can be done about knowing exact rates because of variable coding that depends on content. But knowing average rates is possible and is valuable. There is a difference between (1) 1 Mbit/s or below, (2) 2 Mbit/s and (3) 3 Mbit/s or above. There are quite specific ranges of bitrates that are used for different types of content. Anyway, I provided some links for you not to pin OR on me. Mikus (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed Aspect Ratios to 4:3 and 16:9, because Max Aspect ratio makes no sense to me. Embedded player sometimes has 4:3 DAR, while players on YT site have 16:9 DAR. Any video with non-standard DAR is fit into either of these players. So you can have video in Cinemascope, but the player will still display it in 16:9 window. In fact, since delivery format uses square pixels, video AR does not really matter. You can make video with 20:1 AR, but it still will be played in one of the standard windows (4:3 or 16:9) with either pillarboxing or letterboxing. YT does not restrict videos to a specific AR, it just pads it with black bars to fill the player window. Video AR can be any you like. Mikus (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another thing regarding max resolution -- this is a multiple of two numbers, how do you calculate maximum of it? Just multiply one by another? This does not make sense. YT works differently. It has two player sizes: 16:9 on their site, and embedded 4:3 (I hope they change it to 16:9 as well). Anyway, YT fits video into one of these players, preserving original video aspect ratio. This means, that when widescreen video is played in 4:3 player it will be letterboxed, when 4:3 video is played in widescreen player it will be pillarboxed. For each quality mode there are limits how wide and tall a video can be in pixels. A particularly visible case is fmt=5 - you can have 400x226 for 16:9 video, or 320x240 for 4:3 video. The table used to specify 400x226 as max aspect ratio. Now, say you have a video in wider format than 16:9 like cinemascope. Check this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3u7qhv2epE. You can see it is letterboxed, the player still has 16:9 AR and preserves video's original AR. In 720p the player reports 1280x546, in 480p it reports 854x364, in 360p it reports 640x272, etc. The original player was 320x240 with 4:3 AR, and this is it. If you uploaded video that was not 4:3, YT would stretch or squish it to fit 320x240 frame, so it looked ugly. You had to do hard letterboxing, meaning that if you had widescreen video, you would export it as 4:3, scaling it down and adding black bands on top and bottom, or cutting off the sides. If you look at some older videos like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C7W3AFVrQ you can see that it is fully boxed, because it was originally shot in widescreen and uploaded for 4:3 frame with "hard" letterboxing. I hope this makes sense. Mikus (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolution example

I have issues with the image used to represent YT resolution. First, I don't appreciate the subject. Second, the image has technical issues. It is a widescreen video. but low-res variants are labeled as 320x240 and 480x360, which means 4:3 DAR, not 16:9. I am fully aware of video formats with non-square pixels, but YouTube does not use non-square pixels in its delivery formats, it uses square pixels. One can easily find this out by downloading widescreen YT videos and running MediaInfo or another analyzer on them. So, the standard def images must be at least re-labeled as 426x240 (or is it 400x225?) and 640x360. This is my third gripe, because I cannot verify actual resolution of the source video, because the image does not refer to it, it refers to the whole White House channel.

All in all, I would like to replace this image with something more neutral. NASA images usually work great, and they are free to use. Or I can shoot something myself in 1080p with my own camcorder. I would also align frame grabs horizontally to avoid protruding the image into consecutive sections. Mikus (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This image was done by user Old Guard on Commons in March 2009. Although it is broadly accurate, in the last twelve months it has become hard to keep up with all the 4:3 and 16:9 formats used on YouTube. Strictly speaking, the image is repeating what is already in the table. If the image was dropped altogether, it would not be a great loss, because it would be too complicated to try and summarize all the current formats in a single image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then I am going to remove that image for now. I will come up with something different... I hope it will be better and less... um... political. Mikus (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not intended to be political. It was chosen because the White House channel had public domain videos, and was one of the few channels with 720p videos at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The image YouTube-resolution-comparison.jpg is too big and not really helpful to an average reader. My own preference would be to avoid an image of this kind altogether, as it has become too complicated to explain all of the formats on YouTube with a single image. Readers should be told that there are several different quality levels on YouTube, but YouTube videos are usually watched at 360p, 480p, or 720p. The article should avoid complicated data that makes it hard to see the wood from the trees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Monetizing content

Please note that per WP:NOTHOWTO, Wikipedia articles should not go into excessive detail about how to do something. YouTube is a large subject area, and anything detailed should be left to an external link. The article should be within readable length and interest for an average reader.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about how to do something, it is about options available for content owners as well as about YouTube's own ways of profiteering on user's videos. I will remove stuff about product placement and such if you want, but I will keep other things in. Here, this is an image I am going to use in the section about Partnership program. This is taken from my own video, but I edited video name out because I don't want to advertise myself.

I am not going to write an essay on how to monetize. I want to list the options and discuss the financial side of YouTube. This is different from posting a link to YouTube guidelines. Please, reconsider. Mikus (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists are rarely good Wikipedia writing style, it is best to stick to readable prose. There is scope for discussing how YouTube makes money from showing videos, but a brief paragraph with links giving more details should be enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Deinterlacing

Web video is always progressively scanned, so if someone uploads an interlaced video to YouTube, it will automatically be deinterlaced prior to streaming. Because of the way deinterlacing works, this may cause some loss of picture quality. This is beyond YouTube's control, and YouTube does advise uploading deinterlaced videos where possible. On the question of sourcing, the sources here and here cannot be used as reliable sources, because they are from forums, which are self-published. Anyone can say whatever they like in a forum and there is no peer review, so they are unsuitable as sources in Wikipedia articles. The question of how to deinterlace a video is also specialized and beyond the scope of this article. By wikilinking the terms Deinterlacing and Progressive scan, it is possible for the reader to click on these links and find out more about the subject.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, so let us just say that, instead of that short an uninformative sentence that you've left. Mikus (talk)

There are WP:TOPIC issues here. Deinterlacing is not a major issue on YouTube, and the average reader might not be very interested in the details. The reason why the issue is worth mentioning is because Flash Video is almost invariably progressive. In the table, "360p" means that the video has 360 lines and is progressively scanned. It is not really YouTube's fault that picture quality can be lost during deinterlacing , and YouTube does suggest deinterlacing the picture yourself prior to uploading if this is an issue. I have given the wording in the article a slight change to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, deinterlacing IS a major issue on YouTube, I already suggested you to search forums for "jaggies" or "strange lines" or any other terms users invent when they first see badly deinterlaced video. It is a real problem, and I see badly deinterlaced videos all the time. Here is an example uploaded by the NASA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONvJ0xXT2xY This is not a "side issue" as it is said in WP:TOPIC, it is directly related to quality of streamed videos. It IS partly YouTube's fault that it cannot deinterlace correctly, because after all all consumer TV's can do this reasonably well. Until recently, most consumer camcorders were interlaced only, and if YouTube wants to support ordinary users, it has to have robust deinterlacing. Obviously, little can be done if an uploader deinterlaced incorrectly himself. Mikus (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a great secret that deinterlacing can produce "jaggies". Here is an example of the BBC's coverage of Wimbledon in 1080i producing obvious problems with jaggies. In May 2006 both the BBC and Sky in the UK decided to use 1080i for their HD broadcasts.[5] Adobe recommends converting video to a deinterlaced format before conversion to Flash Video eg here (Interlaced video should be deinterlaced before encoding.).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a great secret for those who know about this. Interlaced video must die, but until it have not, attention should be drawn to its proper conversion into progressive, and to the fact that YouTube streams progressive-scan videos only. I don't think this is a "side issue". The mere fact that the BBC makes the same mistake does not mean that this is a good practice. The CNN stretches its SD videos to fill 16:9 player on its website, is it a good practice too? Until they -- all of them -- are whipped, they won't care to improve quality of their videos. Also, with YouTube working on Rentals program, it will contain more film-based material, which does not require deinterlacing and is monetizeable. So, there will be less and less incentive for YouTube to care about deinterlacing of videos uploaded by non-partners. Mikus (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we have wandered off topic here. The European Broadcasting Union was very clear about preferring progressive to interlaced scanning in the famous report here in January 2005, but this is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article YouTube. The position of YouTube is clear: Please upload videos in a progressively scanned format, otherwise we will do it for you automatically.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a video hosting service! It is about video. Saying outright, that both interlaced and progressive videos are accepted is not offtopic. Saying that automatic deinterlacing may introduce artifacts is not offtopic too. I don't insist on saying WHICH artifacts may be introduced, linking is fine by me. But I want to mention the mere possibility of artifacts, so a reader would be more inclined to click on "Deinterlacing" link.Mikus (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Storage Space

What is the total Hard drive space used by YT or the total space taken up by one full set of the videos online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.223.16 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question, but the famous Google/YouTube secrecy comes into play here. There are no current figures for how many videos there are on YouTube, the storage space required etc. Back in 2006, Forbes estimated that YouTube was streaming 40 million videos and 200 terabytes per day, but that was a *long* time ago.[7] Now we know that YouTube streams over two billion videos per day [8], but the server stats would require a lot of conjecture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Deinterlacing - 2

The image has "bad quality" because it is badly deinterlaced. It is relevant, because it is about "video technology" of YouTube. It is not "original research", because there is nothing to research about it, this is just a part of a frame from a video everyone can watch themselves. Bad deinterlacing is a problem, it is a plaque of many YouTube videos. Mikus (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but please provide reliable sourcing for this addition. As discussed at User_talk:Ianmacm#YouTube, there is a need to provide reliable sourcing for this type of addition.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)