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 format.

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 change that. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

YT also supports 24 fps, the well-known analog film-format. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YT has never changed frames/sec of my videos.. 146.50.227.64 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is another example of the table wandering off into WP:OR. Broadly speaking, the frame rate of the video on YouTube will be the same as the original, usually 25 or 30 FPS. Some of the information about frame rate in the table should be cited reliably or removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to really stress though, that the new table is useless compared to the old one. I don't know who decided on this new table, but it misses a lot of details that were useful in the old one, like the AR and actual statement on the videos online (like 720p, 1080p etc.). The new table is incomplete and seems targeted at professionals. No beginner will understand what video is which format now. 86.93.250.232 (talk) 09:49, 22 September 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)

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.[3] Now we know that YouTube streams over two billion videos per day [4], 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)

German court case on copyright disclaimer

A court in Hamburg, Germany has ruled that YouTube's standard copyright disclaimer ("Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself") is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.[5] This is not in the article for WP:NOTNEWS reasons, and YouTube has announced its intention to appeal against the ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a question...why does YouTube have to even honor any requests by Germany as an American entity? Couldn't they just ignore it? How would Germany prosecute? Aetern142 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This case has echoes of the row over the Italian bullying video.[6] Since YouTube content is hosted under US law and is governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it is not directly answerable to a court in Germany. Legal precedent is that sites hosting user generated content are not held responsible for the actions of uploaders as long as the offending material is removed as soon as it is pointed out. YouTube is appealing in the German case, but at the moment there is not enough about this to mention it in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

New languages and countries

Recently the interface became available in Hebrew. There are also some other new languages (Filipino, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian) bringing the total to 29.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some media reports say that YouTube has versions in 25 different countries, which is not strictly true. With the launch of the version for Argentina there are 24 countries and a worldwide version. The table in the article has 24 countries and flags, because "worldwide" is not a country.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Video technology section > Quality and codecs > Comparison of YouTube media types

This is a backup of the columns describing the older media formats.

Old formats (pre Feb 2009)

YouTube and debunking bad science

An editor removed the sentence and reference concerning NASA's use of YouTube in reaching out to people in debunking saying that this was "personal opinion". Perhaps but it's the opinion of the NASA Astrophysicist tasked with answering public questions on their Ask an Astrophysicist website, David Morrison. Morrison deals with thousands of emails on internet hoaxes and uses YouTube to pass along information to help debunk the hoaxes. While strictly opinion, it's expert opinion uniquely positioned to comment on the subject of outreach.--RadioFan (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube is a tool for many things, including both promoting and debunking pseudoscience. It is always less than ideal to source something back to a personal opinion, as it appears to give undue weight to one person out of the millions who have used YouTube. It is unclear whether the source cited at [9] establishes long term notability, or makes this aspect of YouTube more notable than the others. At worst, it could be an attempt to promote the tv show concerned. It is not really an ideal citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the concern that the citation is to a competitor site? If so, the video in question is available from YouTube as well. Would that help alleviate an of your concerns?--RadioFan (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to sum up what YouTube is about in a few paragraphs, but debunking bad science is probably not at the top of the list. Whether you want to watch how to cook an omelette or George W Bush was responsible for 9/11, there are YouTube videos about it. In this respect, YouTube is radically different from other video sharing websites such as Vimeo, Dailymotion and Metacafe, which are much more specialized in their output. There are YouTube videos about every subject under the sun, and it seems unfair to highlight the views of David Morrison simply because he is an astrophysicist. It is not ideal to give online videos as citations, because they can be used to prove more or less anything by a process of cherry picking. If David Morrison had said this in a newspaper interview it would be more helpful, but there is still the issue of undue weight when there are millions of videos on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article covers the effect YouTube (as well as blogging and the internet in general) has had socially, giving a voice to a variety of talents and viewpoints. The information about Morrison provides the other side of that story. The voice which challenges the negative part of this phenomenon and uses that same vehicle to do . I think this section provides balance and does so from a reputable source.--RadioFan (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The key to YouTube's success is its exceptionally wide range of user generated content. This is mentioned in the article with the reference to the Peabody Award and the keyboard playing cat (which is here). YouTube is the Internet equivalent of a mirror where people can see their own reflection, and the search facility will find videos on both sides of any argument. The David Morrison quote could be used in Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So far only you and are the only ones who seem to care about this. I would like to hear comments from other editors.--RadioFan (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube prefers...

DE-interlaced video. Someone with editing powers correct this please?

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=55744 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.196.162 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article in the section YouTube#Uploading. See also User_talk:Ianmacm#YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality and Codecs - Old Formats, etc.

I understand that the Quality and Codecs table continues to get more difficult to keep accurate and easy to read. I don't think that the Old Formats (before Feb 2009) needs to be included in the main table, but perhaps it can be put in a separate table underneath it? I think it is beneficial since the old videos remain on YouTube, so it doesn't hurt to know what those are too. But I can definitely understand if people are of the sentiment that it is just too much information. I guess while I'm at it--Maybe I should mention that perhaps the Quality and Codecs section is getting so overwhelmed with info, that maybe we need to move it to its own article. The section could remain in the main YouTube article too, but not as a complicated table. Instead, the most important information should remain in the section on the main article, with of course the link to the new article (if we end up moving it). The new article (if it wouldn't be too difficult to maintain) could have the new info as well as the old. I'm just suggesting this in light of the (relatively) often revising of the table. What are your thoughts, people? Regards, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh.....well, I'm having second thoughts. The current look of the table is pretty polished. The info looks fine in this article. I guess we can leave the consideration of having an article for the Quality and Codecs open for acceptance or rebuttal based on people's preferences. I like the thought of having an article with information about the old formats available. I've given my two cents. What about you guys? 24.10.181.254 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

During the period of the good article nomination, the format table was dropped altogether, because it was too complicated and had original research issues. The table is starting to become too complicated again, and much of it seems to be original research gleaned from tools like MediaInfo. The table has its fans and there would be howls of protest if it was removed. However, it is right to point out that the table in its current form is becoming too large and might benefit from some pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)