YouTube adds support for 60 frames per second videos, content creator tools, more

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,240   +192
Staff member

youtube video gaming siriusxm 60 fps 60 frames per second

Watching videos on YouTube will soon be more enjoyable than ever. The Google-owned company has flipped the switch on support for videos of up to 60 frames per second which means video game footage in particular will finally look as it does when playing the actual game.

YouTube has uploaded a few sample clips running in 60 frames per second, namely this Battlefield Hardline Multiplayer Trailer and this Titanfall gameplay footage. For a non-video game glimpse, check out this snipped from season 2 of Video Game High School. Naturally, you’ll need to enable 1080p HD resolution to experience the difference.

Higher quality video options are just one part of the overall picture as YouTube announced several other new features for content creators during VidCon. For example, a new Creator Studio app will help you manage your videos on the go while a new Audio Library with sound effects means you won’t have to go through extreme lengths to create your own audio effects (all are royalty-free, as well).

Elsewhere, YouTube is testing a new Fan Funding feature that allows fans to contribute money to support your channel. Those interested in giving it a try can sign up here.

Other new features on the horizon include Creator Credits, subtitles contributed from fans, info cards and more playlist options. These are in addition to the new deal between SiriusXM and YouTube which will produce a weekly top 15 show called The YouTube 15.

Permalink to story.

 
Great news! For the last year I've been watching movies in 60fps only, either by downloading them remastered in 60fps or using live frame injection. The latter isn't as good as the former though.

But once you get used to it, 30fps isn't an option anymore, you can feel the lag, and it's painful.

Next step for YouTube - provide live frame injection, to be able to watch standard videos at 60fps.
 
Great news! For the last year I've been watching movies in 60fps only, either by downloading them remastered in 60fps or using live frame injection. The latter isn't as good as the former though.

But once you get used to it, 30fps isn't an option anymore, you can feel the lag, and it's painful.

Next step for YouTube - provide live frame injection, to be able to watch standard videos at 60fps.

Does it double the frames (remastering) or something? Since the movie is shot in 24.xxFPS how can you get 60?
 
This is a topic is about as ridiculous as 4K, when it comes to slow bandwidth. I neither have the bandwidth for 4K or 60FPS streams. I'm not complaining about 4K or 60FPS. I'm suggesting it is a ridiculous option for the majority as they couldn't use it if they wanted to. I find it pathetic that such extremes are being pushed out, before the majority can even stream 1080P.
 
This is a topic is about as ridiculous as 4K, when it comes to slow bandwidth. I neither have the bandwidth for 4K or 60FPS streams. I'm not complaining about 4K or 60FPS. I'm suggesting it is a ridiculous option for the majority as they couldn't use it if they wanted to. I find it pathetic that such extremes are being pushed out, before the majority can even stream 1080P.
Don't sweat it Cliff, by the time folks like us can make use of it, the rest of the world (or maybe 0.1% of it) has moved on to 24K and 300FPS.
 
This is a topic is about as ridiculous as 4K, when it comes to slow bandwidth. I neither have the bandwidth for 4K or 60FPS streams. I'm not complaining about 4K or 60FPS. I'm suggesting it is a ridiculous option for the majority as they couldn't use it if they wanted to. I find it pathetic that such extremes are being pushed out, before the majority can even stream 1080P.

So, because the "majority" can't utilize something, the "minority" should not have it? Am I understanding your position correctly or have I misinterpreted it?
 
24K and 300FPS.
I think our eyes will need upgrading before that day comes. lol
So, because the "majority" can't utilize something, the "minority" should not have it? Am I understanding your position correctly or have I misinterpreted it?
You are correct! It doesn't matter if we can afford it or not, we should at least have the options available. In other words upgrade the Internet infrastructure before putting out content that will require the upgrade.
 
Last edited:
I think our eyes will need upgrading before that day comes. lol
You are correct! It doesn't matter if we can afford it or not, we should at least have the options available. In other words upgrade the Internet infrastructure before putting out content that will require the upgrade.

Not fur higher resolutions, we still can see more. In terms of FPS, yeah will need upgrades.
 
Internet infrastructure IS available in some places(I suspect 100mbps is enough for the new technologies), so I believe that these developments that actually use these speeds might push other areas to also upgrade their infrastructure, instead of the other way around you suggest.
It's much easier to make the applications available before an infrastructure upgrade, instead of requiring an infrastructure upgrade before applications are even available.
 
This is a topic is about as ridiculous as 4K, when it comes to slow bandwidth. I neither have the bandwidth for 4K or 60FPS streams. I'm not complaining about 4K or 60FPS. I'm suggesting it is a ridiculous option for the majority as they couldn't use it if they wanted to. I find it pathetic that such extremes are being pushed out, before the majority can even stream 1080P.

What download speed do you need?

In the UK we can get 40mb+ quite easily now and cable is up to 152mb.

Surely thats enough and whats the point in Youtube etc delaying setting their systems up so people with good bandwidth have to wait for other people to get upgraded before they enjoy it.
 
Here in the UK the broadband pictures getting much better the majority can now get faster than 5 Meg. I live in rural Gloucestershire and from next month can get 70 down 20 up (estimated, they build the fibre box just round corner) on fttc. I dismiss the suggestion that the majority cannot get sufficient broadband to stream 1080 60 or hell even 4k
 
24K and 300FPS.
I think our eyes will need upgrading before that day comes. lol
So, because the "majority" can't utilize something, the "minority" should not have it? Am I understanding your position correctly or have I misinterpreted it?
You are correct! It doesn't matter if we can afford it or not, we should at least have the options available. In other words upgrade the Internet infrastructure before putting out content that will require the upgrade.

You'd end up in a chicken-or-egg situation there. Does the infrastructure get upgraded to pave the way for better content delivery, or do you push the content to encourage infrastructure developments? Either way, people - such as yourself in this case - will bemoan whichever happens first.

I can comfortably stream 1080p, have been able to for years, so I'm really looking forward to checking out some vids at 60fps!
 
This isn't going to be fun for Let's Players though, whom could possibly benefit most from this. Whilst 60fps sounds a lot nicer, the recording filesize will be nothing short of a nightmare.
 
You'd end up in a chicken-or-egg situation there. Does the infrastructure get upgraded to pave the way for better content delivery, or do you push the content to encourage infrastructure developments? Either way, people - such as yourself in this case - will bemoan whichever happens first.

I can comfortably stream 1080p, have been able to for years, so I'm really looking forward to checking out some vids at 60fps!
I'm not bemoaning anything, Truth be told I couldn't care less what comes next or about streaming videos at a million frames/sec, I was just posting my normal caustic comments.
 
Back