>>198612071
>uses AV1 now
If your browser and hardware supports it, to start with.
But that's still irrelevant. Their bitrates for VP9 are lower than the ones for AVC/H264, and the bitrates for AV1 are even lower than that. While perfectly understandable, this means that they are aiming at the same perceptible quality. I mean, look at this picrel shit. Ignore the "approximate" m3u8 lines (270, 614), those are incorrect estimations, the actual downloaded result is the exact same as the one in the https versions. Some 1.5 Mbps for AVC (or 1 Mbps for VP9, or 0.7 for AV1) is absolutely laughable. And then on top of that, youtube doesn't even do a good job encoding these streams. I can encode a video to the same target bitrate on my own PC using x264 (sam with vp9) and get results that are so much better than youtube, which runs videos through some very fast and shitty preset. Hell, you can grab a 1080p stream of some youtube video, downscale it to 720p manually and encode it into a 720p stream at youtube's own 720p bitrate, and the result will still be much much better than what youtube generated for 720p. Their quality is absolutely pathetic and inexcusable, but we now have an entire generation of people for whom modern youtube has existed for their whole online life as the sole source of online video content, and they don't even know how ultra trashy it looks because they haven't seen good bitrates and good encodes.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/tv/

Thread:

Why doesn't everyone stop shooting with digital cameras and shoot movies on film instead? Even garbage like Wolverine Origins looks better than…