[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/a/


File: luckystarkagami.jpg (54 KB, 660x585)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qdAAaCYSRLY

>Watch this video in higher quality.

This is the only video on YouTube I have seen with this option (although it doesn't make said video that much better, there is a noticeable jump in quality/QUALITY). Does anybody have any more information about this?
>>
WUT
>>
OP pic relevant to my interests

is it a VN?
>>
>>10166893

HAX
>>
still looks like shit
>>
>>10166952

Doesn't change the fact that it's the only video on the site with that option. Is the OP's video a test video by the YouTube mods?
>>
>>10166960
I watched a sc2 zerg gameplay video with that option. Didn't see much difference in it either.

There's no way that's a test video.
>>
>>10166968

Well, maybe not a "test" video, but a "video undergoing tests".

If the option is so common, link me to another YouTube video with it.
>>
Well, the video still looks like shit
>>
>>10166996

Circular argument is circular.
>>
>>10166979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQoBnKa-e4E
and yes, the video still looks crap using the supposed higher quality option.
>>
>>10166996

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdMu_x5NiDU

What about this video?
>>
>>10167009

Oh, I see, all the newest videos have the option. I'm guessing all the old ones will have it as well soon, and the OP's video was lucky and got it before the rest.
>>
>>10167010

MY EYES

THEY BURN WITH PERFECTION
>>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/16/1952255
>>
why even post this?
>>
>>10167010
Not bad. But as the article in >>10167031 states, the original size of the video is still damn tiny so it might be a crisp'n'clean vid, but will still suck for the details.
>>
>>10167052

"Not bad"? It even looks good in full screen.
>>
>>10167010

Holy HQ Batman
>>
>>10167092
Ok, maybe "not bad" is an understatement regarding >>10167010.
Try the high quality for the sc2 vid though, and fullscreen it. Barely any difference compared to the low quality version, all the units are still blurry.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.