Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-25-2023, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,183 posts, read 8,768,739 times
Reputation: 20203

Advertisements

I'm trying to understand my computer display options. Below are the display options for my Mac. Also showing is the Viewport - Frames that YouTube reports when I'm watching a 4K video. The bold options are I guess recommended. The others are hidden options. My monitor is 4K 3840 x 2160, but for some weird reason my system default for it is 1920 x 1080. Which looks absolutely horrible. 3840 x 2160 is not even a recommended resolution. It's a hidden option. I'm looking for the best resolution I can get to watch 4K videos. Any advice is appreciated.

My questions.

1. What does "low resolution" mean? For example 3360 x 1890 vs 3360 x 1890 (low resolution). They are both the same resolution, and look the same. I have no clue what the low resolution means, or if it is something I should be concerned about.

2. Why is the YouTube Viewport - Frames lower than the resolution set for my monitor? For example with my display set to 3840 x 2160 YouTube viewport - frames show 3492 x 1964 with optimal resolution being 3840 x 2160. So it's below optimal.

3. I'm trying to decide which resolution is best for watching 4K videos on YouTube. I'm inclined to set it to 4096 x 2304. Which is not perfect, it's still leaves it below the optimal resolution for YouTube, and it has the low resolution warning, whatever that means. Any resolution above that does not look good in my opinion. My other option is just to set it to 3840 x 2160, which matches the resolution of my monitor, but is even less optimal resolution for watching YouTube. I think 4096 x 2304 looks slightly better. But it's so close, it might be my imagination. Any thought on which would be the best option?

6720 x 3780 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 6108 x 3436 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
6400 x 3600 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 5819 x 3273 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
6016 x 3384 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 5468 x 3076 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
5120 x 2880 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 4654 x 2618 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
4608 x 2592 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 4188 x 2356 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
4096 x 2304 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 3725 x 2095 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3840 x 2160 ————————Viewport / Frames 3492 x 1964 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3360 x 1890 ————————Viewport / Frames 3054 x 1718 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3360 x 1890 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 3054 x 1718 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3200 x 1800 ———————— Viewport / Frames 2908 x 1636 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3200 x 1800 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 2908 x 1636 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3008 x 1692 ————————Viewport / Frames 2734 x 1538 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
3008 x 1692 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 2734 x 1538 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
2560 x 1440 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 2327 x 1309 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
2560 x 1440 ————————Viewport / Frames 2327 x 1309 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
2304 x 1296 ————————Viewport / Frames 2094 x 1178 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30

2304 x 1296 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 2094 x 1178 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
2048 x 1152 ————————Viewport / Frames 1861 x 1047 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
2048 x 1152 (low resolution) Viewport / Frames 1861 x 1047 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
1080i ————————————Viewport / Frames 1746 x 982 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
1920 x 1080 ————————Viewport / Frames 1746 x 982 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30 This is the default.
1080p————————————Viewport / Frames 1746 x 982 Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30
1680 x 945
1600 x 1200 (low resolution)
1600 x 900
1600 x 900 (low resolution)
1504 x 846
1344 x 1008 (low resolution)
1344 x 756 (low resolution)
1280 x 960 (low resolution)
1280 x 720
720p
1152 x 648
1024 x 768 (low resolution)
1024 x 576
1024 x 576 (low resolution)
960 x 540
960 x 540 (interlaced)
800 x 600
800 x 600 (low resolution)
800 x 450
480p
640 x 480 (low resolution)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2023, 11:57 PM
 
Location: SCW, AZ
8,221 posts, read 13,299,623 times
Reputation: 7862
Typically the operating system in your case, MacOS picks the most optimal screen resolution based on what the video card, the monitor and the video connection (from the machine/video output to monitor) can handle.

I normally would want to get at least 60 Hz at whatever resolution I am using.
My current settings on my Windows 10 machine with Nvidia RTX 3770 Ti video card and Dell U3415W monitor using HDMI: 3440 x 1440 @ 60 Hz (32 bit color), scaling at 100%.

Based on your current display settings and monitor, the bottleneck might be either the video card or its connection to the monitor if you are not able to change it but I am not certain since I am not that familiar with Macs.
I am sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in if you need more info on why yours is -seemingly- so bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2023, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,599 posts, read 24,739,140 times
Reputation: 18835
Yeah, I agree. I had cable issues going from my laptop to a 4K monitor and could only do 30 frames for a while. It was okay for text stuff but not good for video streaming. My guess is you're on some older hardware.

Do whatever you want and see how it works.
Viewport is the actual resolution you're seeing. E.g., if you're streaming 1920x1080@30 FPS but not viewing it in full screen it's only taking up part of the window so you're actually looking at 174xx982 that's been downscaled. Just check the stats for nerds thing in YouTube for a bunch of dropped frames. If your potato can't handle it you'll drop a bunch of frames.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2023, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,183 posts, read 8,768,739 times
Reputation: 20203
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post
Typically the operating system in your case, MacOS picks the most optimal screen resolution based on what the video card, the monitor and the video connection (from the machine/video output to monitor) can handle.

I normally would want to get at least 60 Hz at whatever resolution I am using.
My current settings on my Windows 10 machine with Nvidia RTX 3770 Ti video card and Dell U3415W monitor using HDMI: 3440 x 1440 @ 60 Hz (32 bit color), scaling at 100%.

Based on your current display settings and monitor, the bottleneck might be either the video card or its connection to the monitor if you are not able to change it but I am not certain since I am not that familiar with Macs.
I am sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in if you need more info on why yours is -seemingly- so bad.
Thanks for the reply.


My video card is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 flashed for Macs. I wish I could get 60 Hz out of it. The only options it gives me is 24 Hz, 25 Hz and 30 Hz. So I use 30 Hz through HDMI. One problem since I bought this video card, I have never been able to get the DisplayPort to work. If I could get that to work, I might be able to get 60 Hz. The seller insisted that he tested it and the display port worked. But he tested it on a newer Mac. My Mac Pro is a 2008 model.

Overall this video card is not working terribly for watching video. But it does give me some problems. It gets a little choppy when watching 4K 60fps videos. 4K 30fps videos play reasonably well. The other problem is that I think this video card is starting to go out. Sometimes it randomly starts freaking out. The video starts flashing to black screen, and eventually just to white snow. Then after about 30 seconds the video comes back on and it works again. I think I'm going to have to replace it soon. Getting something to work at 60 Hz is at the top of my list. I have been looking at some newer higher performance video cards on eBay that have been flashed for Macs. So maybe I will try getting one of those and see if I can get 60 Hz to work. Thanks for the suggestions.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2023, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,183 posts, read 8,768,739 times
Reputation: 20203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Yeah, I agree. I had cable issues going from my laptop to a 4K monitor and could only do 30 frames for a while. It was okay for text stuff but not good for video streaming. My guess is you're on some older hardware.

Do whatever you want and see how it works.
Viewport is the actual resolution you're seeing. E.g., if you're streaming 1920x1080@30 FPS but not viewing it in full screen it's only taking up part of the window so you're actually looking at 174xx982 that's been downscaled. Just check the stats for nerds thing in YouTube for a bunch of dropped frames. If your potato can't handle it you'll drop a bunch of frames.
I have been working pretty hard on this problem and doing a lot of research. I think I'm starting to get somewhere. You are right, from what little information I can find, the low resolution options are 2 x scaled down to 1. If that makes any sense. It has something to do with Apple's own Retina displays.

It seems Apple wants me to set the resolution on my 4K 3840 x 2160 monitor to 1K 1920 x 1080. And they have done everything possible to make sure I view it that way including hiding the 3840 x 2160 option, which I have only recently found. Because apparently they think I can't handle viewing 4K and text will be too small for me to read. Which it is not. 1K on a 4K monitor looks horrendous. Everying thing is bloated up way too big, and it just defeats the whole purpose of having a 4K monitor. If I want to view 1920 x 1080 I will just use one of my old 1920 x 1080 monitors.

So now I have figured out that 3840 x 2160 is the correct setting. Even though Apple tries to hide it from me. The next problem was to figure out why the YouTube resolution at 3840 x 2160 was downscaling to 3492 x 1964. I think I found that problem. It seems to be a issue with Google Chrome. The Stats for Nerds shows

Viewport / Frames 3492 x 1964*1.10/ Current / Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30 / 3840 x 2160@30.

When I watch the same video in Firefox, this is how the stats show:

Viewport / Frames 3840 x 2160 / Current / Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30 / 3840 x 2160@30.

No "*1.10" showing. Bingo, finally true 4K YouTube video on my monitor. This was a long time coming. So apparently Chrome is scaling the video. Now I have to try to figure out why that is happening. So far I haven't figured it out. None of my browser extensions seem to be causing the problem. While I'm figuring that out I will just watch YouTube with Firefox instead of Chrome. I'm installing all of my YouTube extensions on Firefox now.

So the problem was two fold. 1. with the messed up and hidden resolution options on my Mac, and 2. with Chrome downscaling YouTube videos. I have to love Apple's logic. 4K video on a 4K monitor = Scaled resolution. 1080p video on a 4K video = Default for display.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2023, 07:20 PM
 
Location: SCW, AZ
8,221 posts, read 13,299,623 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
The next problem was to figure out why the YouTube resolution at 3840 x 2160 was downscaling to 3492 x 1964. I think I found that problem. It seems to be a issue with Google Chrome. The Stats for Nerds shows

Viewport / Frames 3492 x 1964*1.10/ Current / Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30 / 3840 x 2160@30.

When I watch the same video in Firefox, this is how the stats show:

Viewport / Frames 3840 x 2160 / Current / Optimal Res 3840 x 2160@30 / 3840 x 2160@30.

No "*1.10" showing. Bingo, finally true 4K YouTube video on my monitor. This was a long time coming. So apparently Chrome is scaling the video. Now I have to try to figure out why that is happening. So far I haven't figured it out. None of my browser extensions seem to be causing the problem. While I'm figuring that out I will just watch YouTube with Firefox instead of Chrome. I'm installing all of my YouTube extensions on Firefox now.

So the problem was two fold. 1. with the messed up and hidden resolution options on my Mac, and 2. with Chrome downscaling YouTube videos. I have to love Apple's logic. 4K video on a 4K monitor = Scaled resolution. 1080p video on a 4K video = Default for display.
I am glad Malloric was able to steer you in the right direction!
It is interesting that the stats were different watching the same video in two different browsers that are (still) essentially using the same exact browser engine (WebKit) with their own UI wrapper.

One thing when using "stats for nerds" to get the ViewPort/Frames value, you have to be using the same video window size for comparison so make sure you are watching the video in "full screen" in either browser.
Current/Optimal value would be set based on the resolution of the video you are watching. For unpaid versions of YT, that value likely to be 1920x1080 (1080HD) max.

Unless I am not aware that Apple finally cave in or was forced by the regulators to allow competitors to use their own browser engine which in that case would make more sense because Google is using a fork of WebKit called Blink which they have rearchitectured to work way more efficiently (with multi processors and use memory more efficiently) than the seriously outdated code the much neglected WebKit Safari browser is still using. Mozilla Firefox uses their own Gecko engine except for on MacOS.

Another variable is scaling which, again done by the OS based on all other video related settings. Refresh rates (Hertz / Hz) is another setting that can changed based on not change the video hardware/cable/monitor but on the resolution as well. To elaborate, higher the screen resolution the lower the refresh rate (could get). On my monitor, the highest refresh rate is 75Hz at 1280 x 1024 but human eyes cannot really tell when it is over 30 frames per second (if I am not mistaken) so the 60 Hz is really for video/game to run smoother tbh.

But, imho, main problem is the aged Mac hardware you are using.

Last edited by TurcoLoco; 12-26-2023 at 07:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2023, 02:12 AM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,183 posts, read 8,768,739 times
Reputation: 20203
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post
I am glad Malloric was able to steer you in the right direction!
It is interesting that the stats were different watching the same video in two different browsers that are (still) essentially using the same exact browser engine (WebKit) with their own UI wrapper.

One thing when using "stats for nerds" to get the ViewPort/Frames value, you have to be using the same video window size for comparison so make sure you are watching the video in "full screen" in either browser.
Current/Optimal value would be set based on the resolution of the video you are watching. For unpaid versions of YT, that value likely to be 1920x1080 (1080HD) max.

Unless I am not aware that Apple finally cave in or was forced by the regulators to allow competitors to use their own browser engine which in that case would make more sense because Google is using a fork of WebKit called Blink which they have rearchitectured to work way more efficiently (with multi processors and use memory more efficiently) than the seriously outdated code the much neglected WebKit Safari browser is still using. Mozilla Firefox uses their own Gecko engine except for on MacOS.

Another variable is scaling which, again done by the OS based on all other video related settings. Refresh rates (Hertz / Hz) is another setting that can changed based on not change the video hardware/cable/monitor but on the resolution as well. To elaborate, higher the screen resolution the lower the refresh rate (could get). On my monitor, the highest refresh rate is 75Hz at 1280 x 1024 but human eyes cannot really tell when it is over 30 frames per second (if I am not mistaken) so the 60 Hz is really for video/game to run smoother tbh.

But, imho, main problem is the aged Mac hardware you are using.
My hardware is unsupported, but it's still a very competent machine. Considering that 4K video didn't really exist when the machine was manufactured, and yet I'm watching 4K video on it today, with not too much problems. With the right upgrades it might be able to do it perfect.

As for the differences in YouTube resolution in different browsers. I'm definitely in full screen on both browsers, which makes it really hard to understand.

Everything I'm reading says that the viewpoint doesn't matter. The only thing important is that the Current
and Optimal Resolutions match. But I don't think I agree with that. First it doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's not important then why is there a *1.10 after it? I think that Chrome is scaling the resolution, and I think I found proof.

I found this 4KHUD Scaling Test. It seems to do a pretty good job of testing for true 4K video. It contains four bands of 12 vertical lines and four bands of 12 horizontal lines. At first when viewing the video in Chrome, it seems to pass. I can see all the individual lines. But when I look closer, many of the lines are broken at various points. The lines are just messy. But when I look at the same video in Firefox or Brave, the lines are absolutely perfect. Continuous lines from one side of the screen to the other. That tells me that Google is scaling the video, or at very least 4K video is not as good of quality in Chrome as it is in Firefox and Brave. As of yet I haven't been able to find a solution to fix the problem in Chrome.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-U40Feg2wA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2023, 01:05 PM
 
Location: SCW, AZ
8,221 posts, read 13,299,623 times
Reputation: 7862
I understand the machine could be capable and working well but it is still a 15+ yo machine/technology using (an add-on?) video card that is like several years newer on an whatever version of MacOS with not maintained version of video drivers. If all these true, it is actually quite impressive and you should be happy.

On the other hand, the issue is also seemingly more to do with specific software which is also confusing as mentioned before, at their core, they are all using the same exact WebKit engine that Safari uses.

I am not sure how the Firefox wrapper makes such a noticeable different but if I were you, I'd stick with it instead of worry why Chrome is not the same.

By the way, if you watch the same 4K video on Safari, how does it look?

I looked at that last video and my crappy eyes could only see the 4 different color strips.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2023, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,183 posts, read 8,768,739 times
Reputation: 20203
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco View Post
I understand the machine could be capable and working well but it is still a 15+ yo machine/technology using (an add-on?) video card that is like several years newer on an whatever version of MacOS with not maintained version of video drivers. If all these true, it is actually quite impressive and you should be happy.

On the other hand, the issue is also seemingly more to do with specific software which is also confusing as mentioned before, at their core, they are all using the same exact WebKit engine that Safari uses.

I am not sure how the Firefox wrapper makes such a noticeable different but if I were you, I'd stick with it instead of worry why Chrome is not the same.

By the way, if you watch the same 4K video on Safari, how does it look?

I looked at that last video and my crappy eyes could only see the 4 different color strips.
I'm running macOS 10.15 (Catalina) unsupported. I believe I can bring it all the way up to the current OS, if I want to. But the question is do I want to? The new OS won't offer any more support for video cards on a 15 year old Mac. From what I can tell Catalina seems to be the best option.

The problem I'm having with Firefox is that there is no easy bypass for YouTube's ad blocker detection with Firefox. Which is kind of important right now. The 4K videos look just as good with Brave, and Brave seems to be doing a better job of blocking the ads and popups on YouTube. So I'll probably use Brave for now.

As for 4K videos in Safari, I don't know. There is no support for 4K in Catalina. I would have to upgrade to get that. 1080p is the highest playback option I see in Safari.

What I'm thinking about is maybe trying to grab a 2012 Mac Pro on eBay. If I can find one cheap. Then work on upgrading it to the latest OS, without messing up what I have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2023, 06:52 PM
 
Location: SCW, AZ
8,221 posts, read 13,299,623 times
Reputation: 7862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz View Post
I'm running macOS 10.15 (Catalina) unsupported. I believe I can bring it all the way up to the current OS, if I want to. But the question is do I want to? The new OS won't offer any more support for video cards on a 15 year old Mac. From what I can tell Catalina seems to be the best option.

The problem I'm having with Firefox is that there is no easy bypass for YouTube's ad blocker detection with Firefox. Which is kind of important right now. The 4K videos look just as good with Brave, and Brave seems to be doing a better job of blocking the ads and popups on YouTube. So I'll probably use Brave for now.

As for 4K videos in Safari, I don't know. There is no support for 4K in Catalina. I would have to upgrade to get that. 1080p is the highest playback option I see in Safari.

What I'm thinking about is maybe trying to grab a 2012 Mac Pro on eBay. If I can find one cheap. Then work on upgrading it to the latest OS, without messing up what I have now.
You are correct, El Capitan is the latest "officially" supported version on a 2008 iMac but I have seen video of people actually upgrading to Monterey but as you stated, I doubt it would resolve this issue and quite possibly introduce some new ones.

Brave is use a slightly older version of Chrome's Blink engine due to the modifications that have to make so it is still same as Chrome but a bit older where Safari is too different to consider even similar.

My final comment would be in regards to YouTube. If YT is capping the video resolution for free accounts to 1920x1080, technically and logically, what screen you watch it on (technically) could not make the resolution any better despite how it might appear (crispier, better color or smoother playback, etc.).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Computers

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top