I let it buffer before I played it, 40% cpu usuage, and 54% gpu usuage when running it on my second monitor which is hooked up to a GTX 650. Only 35% usuage on my GTX 670

Well 8k videos are on youtube at least 2 to 3 months ago, i can't see real image quality advantage over 4k, downsampling 8k to 4k is worse then playing at 4k, too much compression. Many problems encountered here can be solved forcing the player to run or on MP4 the best codec from youtube or IPV9. 8k on IPV9 seems to run better but i have not made any scientific test. i use magic action extension for chrome, they have the option to choose for MP4 or IPV9.

i can't see real image quality advantage over 4k

You won't really, unless you have an 8k display Downsampling can only do so much on a much lower rez screen

It ran smooth no stutters or audio drop outs, but 40ish%cpu usage & for me it looks no better than 1440p :P .

Same here, but only in Chrome. Firefox outputs black screen or some garbage (broken pixels) if @ fullscreen. Cpu was usually ~ 30-40%.

You mean gaming or otherwise?

Yeah it is a tech news show that uses video game footage while explaining the news.

How to take screenshots above native resolution on Youtube video ?

You won't really, unless you have an 8k display Downsampling can only do so much on a much lower rez screen

Not really. Resolution is one of the key elements of image quality, the bitrate the chroma subsampling and many other factors contribute to a better image quality. What happens here is that 8k videos doesn't have, or at least not the ones i saw, much higher bit rate then 4k ones, i don't even know if uses or not a higher bit rate. Thats why when i see the video in 4k downloading from youtube and the same video in 8k downsampled the 8k one has more motion artifacts. I can only guess that youtube internal codec analyzes and downsamples the 8k video and sends you the 4k option if it uses the same or a very close bit rate the 4k one will be better to download. THe same statement is not true for 4k videos watched on 1080p screens, because the bit rate diference is very high and downsampling in your computer will probably have a better image quality as it will be less compressed.

The first videos with an 8K (7680x4320 pixels) resolution appeared on YouTube. The option to choose theÂ*4320p mode can be used now, but is not yet supported in all browsers.... 8K video appear on YouTube

so there 8k videos are even more horrible compressed then there 2k and 4k? 1080p is already bad to point there it dont look like 1080p cause of there compression

Same here, but only in Chrome. Firefox outputs black screen or some garbage (broken pixels) if @ fullscreen. Cpu was usually ~ 30-40%.

same here, home internet sucks though 5meg. buffering every few secs

Well 8k is the end of the line i think. In tests the human eye cannot see more pixels density then 8k so we are still a few years off 🙂

Well 8k is the end of the line i think. In tests the human eye cannot see more pixels density then 8k so we are still a few years off 🙂

That's going to depend on the size of the display though If it's the size of a cinema screen, you'd see the difference between 8k and 16k I'd say

Somewhat choppy audio and video with a 780 Ti (30-40% cpu and 40-70% gpu) Am I missing something?

4K: 10.4 Mbps, 3840x2160, at 23.836 fps, AVC (High@L5.1) 8K: 20.7 Mbps, 7680x4320, at 23.836 fps, AVC (High@L5.1) Specs of MP4 versions of above video for those interested. These are very low bitrates which would not be good for image quality. For example my GH4 camera records 4K 3840x2160 H264 at a bitrate of 100Mbps so youtube is compressing this 10x more again... even the 8K stream is 5x more compressed (half the bitrate of camera 4K footage). What I am saying people is you are not seeing true 4K or 8K quality on youtube ever.