Comments on: Higher Quality Video Player Coming to YouTube

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:30:05 +0000

The only downside is that it generally takes significantly longer to transcode efficient H.264 then it does more current codecs, so they will have to beef up their transcoding farms a bit.

Or they will just make it take longer to transcode those videos. I'm guessing as it stands right now they already have an impressive server farm, but hopefully they do add to it so that the performance and transcoding time isn't ungodly.

By: dkong

dkong — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:57:58 +0000

Finally….

By: KylesCove

KylesCove — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:37:09 +0000

This was definitely a necessity for YouTube. Many of their competitors do this already, so its good to see they are making an effort to keep up.

By: Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:08:25 +0000

This has been in the works for a long time – its actually tied to Adobe’s new beta of Flash Player 9, which has the H.264 support needed to make HD streaming palatable as far as server storage, streaming performance, bulk and bandwidth usage.

The only downside is that it generally takes significantly longer to transcode efficient H.264 then it does more current codecs, so they will have to beef up their transcoding farms a bit.

I transcode everything into iPod-compatible 640x H.264 – it plays on everything – iPod, TiVo, XBox, my Archos, PC, Mac – and a DVD will fit in about 1.5 GB and looks great on my widescreen.

If you want to ditch iPod support (iPod can only handle low-complexity H.264 ), you can get a DVD in under 800MB.