Been looking for this video for YEARS. I remember seeing it when it was first uploaded, and could only remember it had "scape" in the name...astroscape, spacescape, nightscape, then today it popped into my head for some reason...timescape!! Love this so much.
this video is so incredible i use this video as a way of testing and calibrating screens. Some true passion has gone into making of this video, i can tell that. ***** you should be proud of yourself :)
No, he was saying he's watching it on a 2560 x 1440 resolution monitor. So it's higher than 1080p, but smaller than 4k. So it'll look better than most people.
Why are RU-vid bothering with 4K when their maximum refresh rate is still only 25 / 30Hz, that's half the speed of television, which has been 50 / 60 Hz since the 1930's? Apart from that, good work!
That's because it's compressed, youtube apparently doesn't allow full 4K content so 2K is really the highest you can go. But I believe it was filmed in 4K
Because youtube restriction on uploads back when this was posted. Original is clearly not the actual original. Actually youtube still has restrictions, error comes up when trying to upload 4K
Viewed this in 4K in Google Chrome on OS X Mountain Lion, on an Early-2008 "Non-Unibody" MacBook Pro with 2.4GHz "Penryn" Core 2 Duo, only 4GB of DDR2 RAM, and nVidia GeForce 8600M GT, without any issues what-so-ever.
"K" is 1024. "k" is 1000. 4 x 1024 = 4096. And the reason that there is no "standard" 4k is because there are many aspect ratios out there so the height number varies dramatically to cater for 2:1, 3:2, 16:9 etc.
-go to 1:50 -make sure it's 1080p -go in full screen -play the video, there is a star in the middle/mid-right of the screen that seems to be staying still or kinda of moving in the opposite direction of the other stars... what is it..? make sure you look closely because its only one star out of them all.
I know... that's why I said television version..., 3840x2160 is "Ultra High Definition/UHD" rather than real 4K (4K which has been used for ages in the movie industries)
Seiki makes a 50" 4k tv for about $1100.00. It can be used as a computer monitor. Then, you just need a 4k resolution video card in your computer. The only ones available now, that I know of, is in fairly expensive video gaming cards. I'm sure companies are working on simple, low cost 4k resolution video cards. At that point we'll just need RU-vid to go back to 4K streaming and we'll see these 4k videos at their best.
just for the streaming, the video is not a full 4k video. but if you will download it to your computer with keepvid or any other website, the video itself is a native 4k. the reason that the streaming is not in the original resolution of the video is because 4k streaming is not yet popular enough. BTW, i've just saw the video in my new LG 4K TV in REAL 4k res. just amazing.
+lcmattern Well the actual movie is available in 4K, in like four different kinds(and BlueRay and pretty much every single other format under God's eye)
RU-vid 4k isn't 4k. You are just categorically wrong on that. Just like how youtube's 1080p isn't really 1080p. I said actual 4k video, not what youtube tells people is 4k.
It's so obvious that the skies of the first ones was added later for anyone who knows a little bit of editing, but still great job man. You should try to blend it better, the trees and mountains have different color temperatures and saturation. But as I said, great job.
A 4K timelapse actually isn't crazy expensive to produce - a RAW image from a 5D MK3 is 5616x3744 and Full Aperture 4K is defined as 4096x3112. 4K isn't viewable by the masses is more like it, unless they have an extremely high res computer monitor or a local cinema that is capable of 4k projection. 4K video is a whole different ballpark, but can be had for under $20,000.
You need a 3.82 Gb/sec connection to stream true 4k video. One second of 4k video is over 450 MegaBytes. 45 Megabits/sec connection doesn't even come close to being able to stream it. Look up video bitrate calculator if you want to see for yourself.
Thats YTs max resolution to show atm. If you download the video, you get the 4k option(FF DH) and can see the video in a higher resolution. However youre right it doesnt appear to be a full 3840x2160 but as 2560x1440, Frame rate 24 and a bitrate of 9596kbps.
This would be so much better if they didn't use day shots of the landscape and throw in night shots of the sky. It looks odd together with the lighting. Looks good on 1440p. Might consider downloading, depending on the price.
Yes, in the west it is easier (less light pollution), also, longer exposures are better. Don't make them too long or the stars will begin to appear as lines when you look back at them.
i don't know, there is something strange with flash....if i rip it and play it in a video player it works just fine but when i try to watch it on the website with the stupid flash player it's laggy
I have a 1440p screen which is the highest resolution widescreen monitor you can get right now. you can get one for like 300 bucks. 4k TV's are out but the last time I checked it cost 25k lol
you said lets do the math: youtube uses H.264 encoding on its vids. This requires around 10mbps to stream 1080p at 24fps 4k is also QFHD - quad full HD 10*4=40 40
I'm watching this in a 4:3 format monitor and i'm shocked by the quality anyway. I can't imagine how it would be to watch this video on a 4K TV/monitor.
