youtube allowing higher quality videos

here is a sample:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ipxn-hKvbNE&fmt=6

it seems that adding the " &fmt=6 " part in the end of a video can allow better quality to be seen. bitrate are said to be around 800kb/s

anyway the sample i linked is really nice quality right?

 

Very good quality,but very weird video.

 

They seem to be at 800kbps (the same I use on my site) but did you notice how low the frame rate seemed? It could just be my shit PC but it looked to be about 20fps rather than the standard 30fps. Also I don't think the audio was in stereo. Stioll, it's a lot better than the shit the offer at the moment :nod:

Yakumo

 

I have a very good PC, and it lagged for me as well.

 

Shitty lookind, i'll stick with stage6, which is also shitty looking, but... eh... it's better i guess.

 

i'd bang that

 

to me it's perfectly smooth. have you tried to make it load fully instead of streaming? keep i mind it's nothing official!

Oh, also it is mono, yes.

 

that was weird...

but pretty good quality for YouTube.

what was that girl saying??

 

I really wish Youtube had better quality, maybe this is a step to that.

Oh yeah, and sometimes I wish commenting was just gone.

 

It works good for me. You have to leave it to finish download.

 

framerate was fine for me...

 

I'll be honest... I wasn't paying attention to the bitrate of that video...

 

i streamed and as far asi could tell...it was good..

can we get a less distracting video?

 

distracting? i was quite concentrated on it

just take a random video and add to the link's end
&fmt=6
if you're lucky you get the higher quality one.

 

i meant distracting from the focus of...quality...

 

It appears they are not really "allowing" higher quality uploads. It seems this happens by mistake if you convert the video to flash video manually before, which will force youtube to not reencode it. Funny people didnt find this out earlier.

 

Hmm, I've got a converter that can turn videos into Flash video. Next time I make a video I'll do that. It'll save time, too.

 

I bet they'll stop flash uploads now. So it still looks like everyone is still stuck with shitty YouTube quality after all. It's not surprising though. The videos I have on my site are really nice quality but can range from 10mb to 35mb for 5 to 10 minutes for a 800kbps video at 480x360 resolution and with 80khz stereo audio. You can imagine how fast the space would be eaten up with the amount of dumb shit people post on YouTube.

Yakumo

 

That's certainly a lot better than most videos on YouTube, although it runs really slowly if you don't let it finish downloading first. I don't understand why YouTube uses flash in the first place, since flash is renowned for its shitty performance. It would be much better if they'd use Quicktime or Windows Media, since the quality is better and it runs smoother.

 

Maybe they use flash because it's harder to copy? I mean converting flash to video is a right pain in the ass if you don't have the right software.

Yakumo