Google YouTube testing 60FPS Ultra HD 4K Videos

YouTube videos will now be played with ultra-high 4K definition and 60 frames per second. The video sharing platform of Google Inc. has already tested its videos 60 frames per second as well as with 4K resolution, but this time the team is experimenting with both formats simultaneously, which will certainly result in crisp, clear and sharp videos. However, the rollout of 4K/60 FPS streaming is currently limited only to a small number of videos for the reason that most of the monitors do not support 4K resolution.

60FPS Ultra HD 4K Videos on YouTube

60FPS Ultra HD 4K Videos on YouTube

One needs a high-speed internet connection with at least 100MBPS to stream the high-quality videos in 4K resolution with 60 frames per second. Some time in last year, YouTube started playing the videos at 60 frames per second, but most of the videos were not streaming well, for the reason that 60FPS was not available for all different resolutions.

For now, a short playlist of six videos supporting 4k resolution with 60 FPS is uploaded on YouTube. These videos will stream smooth only in the compatible devices like Smart TVs and high-resolution computer monitors. CES 2015 witnessed the launch of several devices supporting 4k resolution which will let users watch and enjoy these ultra-high definition videos.

This move, however, will lift the bar of video quality in YouTube and enhance the users’ experience significantly, but there is no official word from Google Inc. about when this functionality will be unlocked for all videos. We are embedding a video from this playlist. Do check if they run at 4k resolution and 60 fps on your system. Watch it in full-screen!

Posted by with Tags
Shiwangi Peswani is a qualified writer and a blogger, who loves to dabble with and write about computers and the Internet. While focusing on and writing on technology topics, her varied skills and experience enables her to write on any topics which may interest her.


  1. Arun Kumar

    Great news. But I doubt it will be success.

    How many people can afford the equipment required to record at 60fps? Add to it, the editing software. AFAIK, most editing software still haven’t progressed beyond 30fps. In Asian countries and Europe, the PAL format supports 25 fps and editors create at that rate for TVs and DVD players. Of course, they can go ahead and edit at 30 fps for YouTube. But I doubt there is any budget video editing software that gives you more than 30fps as that is the standard for NTSC format (US etc).

    Even if there are editing programs that let you edit at 60fps, they must be ultra-costly. A 16GB RAM is not sufficient to build a 5 min 30fps video at 16:9 on Premiere. It takes ages to render the output. I wonder what kind of systems would it require to edit at 60fps, even if such software is available.

    Definitely not for the average YouTube partners. Not in near future at least. That’s why I am disappointed at lack of easy availability of desktop supercomputers. A 128 bit architecture would have made it much easier for high resource computing. But it did not happen so far

  2. Riddle

    I assume you’re talking entirely at 4k resolution, right? Because 1080p/60fps is not hard to achieve at all. Also, how would 128-bit architectures help anything right now?

  3. Guest

    have fun staying in the stone age…

  4. Dan

    Indeed, many might not be able to afford 4K and beyond cameras; but even current versions of open-source Blender via its video sequence editor can edit or output in good NTSC/PAL/audio settings, including 1080p/60fps and AAC of 256bps or better; while this may not substitute for 4K capture quality, at least one can output a 60fps video if one day some site requires such rate (and use open-source like Handbrake to web-optimize it and get smaller upload file). As for just viewing on PCs, even one of my Acer laptops with Windows 7 Home 64 bit dual core was able to easily run the video sample (in full-screen) Ms. Peswani embedded in her feature. Hope this is useful, cheers!

  5. Arun Kumar

    I was concerned about the cost of equipment required to record at such a high resolution and to process them w/o spoiling that resolution. Video rendering after adding effects take time so the computer needs to be fast. I guess a 128 bit desktop would have better served the needs but that is just an add on to the comment. Main concern was the purchase or even rental of such equipment.

  6. Arun Kumar

    Thanks for replying, Dan. I will check out Blender and see how it works. Because most of the video editors, I;ve worked with, have always spoiled the resolution of capture. I do not have any access to 4K resolution capture but still I will like to see how Blender works.

    I am not concerned about playback here. I was just thinking how to edit videos at such a high resolution even if I could access one of those recording devices without spoiling the original capture res. I am just wondering how many can afford to purchase the kind of equipment needed to create and edit such a high quality video.

  7. Dan

    You’re so right about anyone needing a cost-effective way to do broadcast-grade content production at a commercial pace; re Blender, I was only trying to suggest a way smaller-scale NLE at 1080p/60fps can be done, for small studio, single project, or everyday people if their YouTube home videos one day would have to be HD for upload. I get passes to the NAB and IBC every year, which makes me no specialist, but about the only non-cumbersome, cheap-ish 4K editor I’ve seen is the relatively new cloud service “Forscene”…cheap-ish in terms of usual costs for those regularly commercially needing up to 18 camera feeds at once, or hosting HD bigtime (of course, the cloud offers even better continuity of images than most traditional digital media, so maybe one day somebody will create a Forscene-like cloud service for smaller HD video makers). All my best to TWC and its readers!

  8. Kita

    You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. I edit in 4k all the time and my editing equipment cost about $3,000 altogether. Not that much when you include the computer and Premiere, and my computer isn’t even the fastest out there. Maybe good for games and editing that’s about it.

  9. RyviusRan

    This sounds great for gamers.
    I can run most games at 4k 60fps and I was a bit mad that there was no option for it on YouTube.
    YouTube has very bad compression on their videos so you need to upload in 4k to even get half way decent video quality in high motion game footage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 + 5 =