Why is streaming video still so hard in 2016?
>inb4 shitty internet
I have 35 down/ 6 up, more than enough to stream 4k at a decent bitrate, theoretically.
Why do even large companies still have a hard time serving videos?
Because they are not serving just you
>>53539767
cause every increase in internet speed means people expect higher video quality
also keep in mind non-streaming video can sit around being encoded better and smaller for better quality than the on the fly compression of streaming video
add to all that you take awhile to even upload a video to youtube and then people use their stronger download speeds to watch it faster from there in higher quality
so just add all those factors together and it's fucking obvious why streaming at high quality is so 'hard'
Shitty ISPs with shitty peering
>>53539793
This.
>>53539792
>>53539776
None of that should matter.
I could understand if it's 2005, but it's not.
Everyone should have fat enough pipes nowadays.
It should be as mundane as running water at this point.
>>53539821
>None of that should matter.
what quality of video do you wish to stream?
>>53539767
Because your ISP doesn't pay for enough bandwith
>>53539767
There is more on a internet connection than just Speed. Quality is needed, aka, a low ping, low jitter and good local cache servers from google.
If you don't have optic fiber on this day and age, just end yourself, even Mexico have fiber now at affordable prices.
>>53539971
4k xvid.
>>53540218
>xvid
were you just unfrozen from cryostasis?
>>53540218
4k would be from 10 to 45mbps, your connection is only 35mbps.
Also, you haven't posted if you're on asdl, cable or optic fiber.
Do a ping/jitter test.
http://www.pingtest.net/index.php
>>53540280
YouTube maxes out at something like 33 Mbps for 4K 60 Hz VP9 streams.
If OP really does have a 35 Mbps downlink then streaming it should be fine.
>>53540218
So stream it. I don't understand what problem you're having. If a video is recorded in 4k and you got enough system power and bandwidth to play it, all power to you. What could you possibly be having problems with? If the hardware is adequate, you should have no problems playing 4k videos.
>>53540080
You mean fiber to the home? Almost on one has that
>>53540333
>Almost no one
So you live on a place worse than mexico?
>>53540357
Germany has 3rd world internet, yes
99% of it is still 70 year old copper landlines
Also keep in mind, 35 down/6 up is only between you and your ISP, or you and which ever server you're doing your speedtest with.
Your 35/6 isn't a 36 Mbps downlink to Youtube.
Also, you might just have a shitty ISP that purposely throttles Youtube. Y'know, cause their shitty logic tells them doing that would make you want to buy a cable subscription from them. Lol netneutrality
>>53540357
Most of the US doesn't have access to good fiber right to their home.
Also, if you are lagging while playing YouTube videos, stop using chrome. I found that even Internet Explorer has perfect 4k playback with my shitty laptop and 16Mbps download speed
>>53540375
>>53540392
So OP doesn't have Fiber?
Mistery Solved.
Change ISP or call them every single day until they fix the connection.
>>53540394
Best player for streaming YouTube (IMO) is mpv.
That will run 4K 60 Hz like nothing else will, especially if you enable hardware decoding.
>>53540427
Teach me how, I never understood youtube-dl
>>53540492
1. Install the latest version of mpv
2.mpv https://youtu.be/URL
>>53540609
Or just use SMPlayer+ SMTube + mpv and have a GUI
>>53540654
I would really strongly, strongly suggest nobody use SMPlayer.
It's fine if you want a GUI, but please use something else instead. SMPlayer is written against MPlayer and it treats mpv the same.
Not only does it use mpv in terrible ways that actually cause a bunch of false mpv bug reports (simply because SMPlayer is doing something completely stupid), but the internal code and coding practice also reeks of pure shit.
Except breakage, quality degradation, weird bugs and bad performance if you use SMPlayer.
>>53540687
The only issue I had was that for some reason the max volume was set to 110, and mpv doesn't support this. Otherwise it works fine now.
>having sub-100/100 connection
>complaining about companies
>>53539767
>I have 35 down/ 6 up
shitty internet, americuck
Biggest problem with youtube is all the streaming is cpu heavy. When watching a 4k 60fps video I used to drop frames on my 3470 but now that I have a 4790k at 4.6ghz its smooth and no dropped frames
>>53540715
>and mpv doesn't support this
mpv defaults to using the volume controls of the audio device, which is limited by what the API supports.
You can force it to use softvol instead, and change softvol-max to your liking. (Default: 130)
>>53540848
For reference: I software-decode >30 Mbps 4K 60 Hz VP9 just fine on an i7 3770, and I can even (just barely) decode HEVC at the same resolution and bitrates. (With the OpenHEVC intrinsics patch to ffmpeg)
>>53540960
Any by “just fine” I mean “30% CPU usage or so”.
What ever happened to Google Fiber? That was convincing me to switch to the botnet, did they kill it quietly ala Glass?
>>53540218
>autism
>>53539767
because the website is a shitfest of bloatware coded by designated indians
>>53540782
Should be enough for most people.
>>53539767
Because multicast hasn't been adopted for the internet yet.
>>53540080
70 bucks a month for Internet is too much for me, plus like 20 dollars in random Verizon fees
>>53542676
And $100 in damages to your person due to Verizon's disrespect for your privacy.
(Or $10 for a VPN)
