Youtube adds support for 60 fps videos and fan donations

Youtube is adding 60 frames per second video playback along with some cool new features for creators. The updates are scheduled to go live in the next few months but we’re already getting a peek at some of the improvements.

As Vidcon, one of the biggest online video conventions out there, gets underway Google announced some of the new changes coming to Youtube.

First up is support for 48 and 60fps video playback which is intended to make gameplay footage look better online. Most modern games strive for 60 frames per second performance so that will now translate nicely when users post gameplay or trailer videos on Youtube.

Secondly Youtube is adding support for “fan funding”. Many channels out there are supported by fans through Kickstarter, Indiegogo and other such services but Google is trying to cut out the middleman. A few select channels will start testing out this feature, where fans can donate money directly to their favourite creators through Youtube.

Finally there’s a new Youtube Creator Studio app, currently on Android but launching on iOS too, which lets you manage your channel on the go. Alongside it the desktop version will also get a redesign and a number of other improvements. For a full list you can check out the source link below.

Source: Youtube Creator Blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hisense announces new Windows Phone 8.1 device, Mira6

Next Story

Watch: Microsoft's Cortana keynote at SMX Advanced


Commenting is disabled on this article.

Is it supposed to be 60fps with HTML5 video or Flash? Or both? Neither look 60fps. But in Flash it shows the frame rate stats. It doesn't go about 40fps with a lot of dropped frames.

Same here... I got tons of drop frame rates and it does not go over 41FPS... but I get 30-40FPS most of the time... hardly close to 40FPS at all...

Just read Engadget's comment. It seems you nee to be in 1080p+ for noticing that frame bump!

I can't see FRAPS go beyond 38 FPS....

Depends on your playback method too. Using Flash I average 38-45FPS with plenty of frames dropped. With HTML5 I get the full 60FPS with a small handful at best dropped. CPU usage never gets above 2-3% either way. Flash needs some work.

I watched some 60fps footage filmed with my Galaxy S5 on my TV yesterday and it felt extremely sped up. Was unusual and I wasn't keen.

Well i can't tell the difference, even looking at 30 v 60 fps gaming videos doesn't get any clearer for me, it's only evident when the video is slowed down, one stutters, the other doesn't

FYI: The embedded example video is not by default shown in 60 fps, since that is only available in 1080p quality and the default quality is 360p. So use the gear icon on it. :)

Of course disabling DASH also disables the formats YouTube offers via DASH, which is most of them now. Only the lower quality videos are served as non-DASH now.

interesting, didn't realize that. i'll probably still keep it disabled though because its implementation is crap IMO and doesn't buffer far enough ahead a lot of the time

I disabled DASH and I still get 720p (the most my connection can handle unless I leave the videos for 30+ minutes before watching) from all my subscriptions.

Brando212 said,
that's the DASH buffering. (aka it's designed to only buffer slightly ahead of playtime). which i think is stupid so have disabled with a userscript

I use and commonly recommend and since userscripts seems to be down a lot anymore you can also get it from here

Never thought something like this existed! For overcoming that problem I use Google Chrome with HTML 5. (Other browsers don't do it as well as Chrome)

I find it hilarious now this is now the next big thing (60 fps in games), when we've been using 120+ hzs displays to do 120+ fps for several years now.

Completely different from watching video and more importantly, dealing with the file size and bandwidth requirements for such video.

Hell, even Bluray only goes to 30 fps.

This IS new for a video delivery service. This has absolutely nothing to do with rendering games and the capability of gaming hardware.

Vlad Dudau said,
HFR video always has that "too fast/ too real" look. We're just too used to the cinematic 24 fps.

You are. I love it.

My brain has an easy enough time handling it for all the time I'm not watching a video on a computer screen. :p

I've never understood the "too real" complaint. I loved it when I saw it at 48fps. I loved the fact the Hobbit felt "more real".

That's just because the human eye can only see in max of 24 fps. That's why the movies are produced in that frame rate Kappa

No twitch users here? Well, alright. Was just making fun of some people that think that eyes see in frames and the whole "the human eye can't see a difference between 60 fps. PC sucks, limited 30 fps on consoles FTW!" mentality.

Pupik said,
That's just because the human eye can only see in max of 24 fps. That's why the movies are produced in that frame rate Kappa

No twitch users here? Well, alright. Was just making fun of some people that think that eyes see in frames and the whole "the human eye can't see a difference between 60 fps. PC sucks, limited 30 fps on consoles FTW!" mentality.

Almost fooled me there.

Its hard not to notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps I think.

Play Gears of War on the Xbox 360 at 30fps, then play the PC version at 60fps, the difference is huge, and very nice too!

It's not hard at all, you just need a display that is actually capable of displaying a decent set of frames to you (refresh rate)

render 250fps on a 60hz device, and you are still only actually getting 60 updates to the screen at once. if vsync is on then you're fully capped to 60fps, if vsync is off then those frames will be blends of 4.16 frames, so multiple tears, but still only 60 actual updates to the display a second!

You need a CRT at a high refresh, or at least a 144hz LCD (not a 240hz, as they're jsut 120hz doubled up) to start actually analysing high frame rates properly.

Games like COD/BF4 etc move to slowly for most people to notice either way. You need a real game like Quake.

Indeed, 24 FPS was used at the time the film industry began as it was the lowest rate of FPS that the human eye could perceive motion so easier and cheaper to do.

Introducing motion blur can make motion smoother (you notice the motion blur though) with low FPS and introducing motion interpolation can make 24 FPS films look like HFR/Soap Opera effect.

As for 30-60 FPS, Motion is indeed a lot more fluid and as for 120 FPS, apparently there is a noticeable difference. however, personally, I cannot confirm this as I never owned a 120Hz/144Hz display.

At 30fps we see motion blur. At 60fps we see fluid motion (has that kinda fast-forwardy appearance) which is what most gamers like to see. While checking out some of the other 60fps vids and comparing them to the 30fps versions, i see a huge difference. looks just like when i play my games. maybe now i can upload some of my disturbing flash animations (seizure warning)