YouTube under Windows XP - Downloaders, players and browser support

[dmiranda]

Yeah. REF mpv. Have you had any luck with Marroc's custom build?

[AstroSkipper]

9 hours ago, dmiranda said:

Yeah. REF mpv. Have you had any luck with Marroc's custom build?

Unfortunately, no. It doesn't work properly on my system. 

[dmiranda]

Bad news. I thought it was only me.

[user57]

is that a new problem that apeared now ? 

in the end it has to be a common RGB buffer, RGB is something like the ultimate but it got a problem 1 picture is already very big

1 picture : 4096 * 2060 (4k) = 3 * 8 (RGB) * 4096 * 2060 = 202´506´240 bits

older internet connections like 56k maybe got 3,6 kb/s sometimes 5,6 kb/s 

 

the same goes for the old sound formats RAW like .wav where pretty big, so when they came up with a .mp3 it was something a 56k modem can do

 

so going back even with 100kb/s , a RAW file in RGB would be to much

thats why they decreased the pixels and use compressions like mp4 

RGB also has a lot of colors it can display for 24 bits it are already 16,7 millions (thats a lot of colors for 1 pixel)

 

storerage also plays a role, it make sence instead of 24 GB file to use maybe 700 mb files (what are high compressed)

 

thats why they still use compressions , a combinations of the things i just talked about

even a stream service use useally a h.265 or maybe still h.264 codec 

 

 

and youtube also do

 

so what youtube (and other website) actually do 

they use this address to lead to a certain video file 

 

this file in then played with a player (in case of chrome that player runs inside the browser)

 

the player then has to decode the file to a RAW file (aka the RGB buffer) 

that begins with a single picture or RAW buffer or "RGB buffer" 

 

 

to mention is also the including audio codec file (what also is converted to a RAW audio file - what use tricks and stuff to "reconstruct" the audio) - very similar to a video compression if you ask me 

 

 

i wonder if youtube did something here. they actually tryed to avoid the consumer this to be seen / or known

youtube itself rather looks like a commercial tv publisher now - thats bad news - because it suppose to be for the consumer (you! - tube ) - but more and more it goes into a different direction 

 

if someone noticed the lawers that apeared now and try to explain "what you now should do and what is right or not" is not a lucky apearence - it happend for this specific reason 

thats also why you see a lot of ad´s now and payable things 

the lawers in the past already won the lawsuit vs ad blockers - so i think they will take this one too (if they can - they certainly will try - because they will get money from the ad makers)

 

[AstroSkipper]

@user57 A little tip from me. Why don't you format your text so that people don't have a crisis when they read it? A text stretched out like this is difficult to read and is actually just annoying. I don't understand your countless blank lines at all. What you actually want to say falls completely by the wayside. Anyway! That was just a friendly hint.

Edited June 17, 2024 by AstroSkipper

[user57]

well actually i do that to make the text easier to read - it seems that didnt work sorry

 

but having the 24 picture / frame question now 

yes for a smooth video you need 24 frames (and yes 24 times 202´506´240 bits)

US gone with 60 frames for TV, EU for 50 frames 

 

but 24 are by far ok for a common video 

but here is a good catch 

you actually can make 24 frames/pictures in 1/60 of a second (that dont make it 60 frames or with 1/50 seconds 50 frames)

it just read out a picture from this world in 1/60 of a second and stores them 24 times (that looks smooth useally too)

in well light you even can make 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a second * 24 times 

i had some big trouble to explain that in a photo forum 

after that created a mess and the 2 other things i pointed out (having a larger picture and going backwards result in more pixels) (electronic global shutter) (large sensors vs small sensors) - i actually was banned from that forum 

dont got me wrong i wasnt rude at all - but still that happend

but later a other well known photograf pointed out exactly these things and 2 things happend : global/syncron shutters and bigger sensors nailed it - the images where supreme a big win for all

 

less then 24 frames/picture make the video look odd by the way, you see the picture shutter or the people move like they where time skipped - but again taking picture with 1/60 speed is well - and dont need 60 frames you just have 24 picture taken with 1/60 speed

[UCyborg]

For use with PotPlayer: https://github.com/Alexey71/PotPlayer-SponsorBlock - Modified version of the default PotPlayer YouTube extension that adds SponsorBlock support.

I've been occasionally using old Mozilla extension Ant Video Downloader, with its YouTube module slightly modified to work with changes implemented in recent times, yesterday it still mostly worked, sometimes getting title of the video wrong because requests for video can go out before title of the page is updated.

Today it no longer works, seems URL parameters used to recognize characteristics of stream are gone.

[jumper]

On 6/17/2024 at 2:26 PM, user57 said:

US gone with 60 frames for TV, EU for 50 frames

Analog NTSC is 60 interlaced fields creating 30 frames per.second. PAL is 50/25.

Digital TV theoretically supports higher frame rates, but in practice only broadcast the traditional analog rates.

Edited June 29, 2024 by jumper
Embolden

[jumper]

On 6/17/2024 at 2:26 PM, user57 said:

less then 24 frames/picture make the video look odd by the way, you see the picture shutter or the people move like they where time skipped - but again taking picture with 1/60 speed is well - and dont need 60 frames you just have 24 picture taken with 1/60 speed

For smooth motion, shutter speed must match frame rate. This provides the right amount of motion blur. Hollywood movies shot this way at 24 fps looked very good.

Shutter speeds of 1/60 yield great stop-action freeze-frames, but look jerky at 30fps or lower and can cause eye strain (and even pain). It all depends on the amount of motion in the screen.

 

[user57]

there are only a few disadvantages for 1/1000 or maybe 1/2000 (thats when the motion blur totally vanishes up)

fight scenes are good with that, moving rainwater is a bit in disadvantage but in my opinion it looks still ok

but we talking about 1/60 

a lot of cameras however has to increase their iso , what means less resolution , you actually either need a good light or fast lens 

older cameras had like F3.2 to be a fast lens but thats not really true, rather F1.4 is fast 

and smarptphones because they actually got a fast f-stop samsung F1.5 and others F1.7 they have a very fast shutter speed for their videos 

the hobbit was made with 48 frames and it looked very smooth 

 

its a compromise instead of having 60 frames you can have 24-30 frames of 1/60 shots

[Prac]

I've just found that SMtube (latest version) and vlc work smoothly to play 360p youtube videos; however, this is only in Windows XP SP3 Integral Edition (Link to Windows XP SP3 Integral Edition 2024.6.6); I tried the same SMtube/vlc installation in an oficial Windows XP SP3 clean installation and I just got a error message from vlc; Currently I'm uninstalling one by one the additions of integral edition to know what is the "magic" addition that allows play youtube videos in that context.

[Prac]

On 6/10/2024 at 3:41 PM, Berno_sour said:

If VLC is executed instead of SMPlayer, u need to change player priority in the config of SMTube.

Hi, I just installed SMTube and VLC in an official clean installation of WXP SP3, but I only got error messages from VLC, on the other hand, youtube videos with SMTube and VLC play smoothly with WXP SP3 Non Oficial Integral Edition 2024.6.6 ¿Did you install any aditional codec or some update to your WXP Installation?

[AstroSkipper]

Great news about 3D Youtube Downloader
 

On 1/23/2024 at 1:33 PM, AstroSkipper said:

3D Youtube Downloader (free of charge). The version I am using is 1.19.17 but there is a newer one 1.20.2. This downloader does not use yt-dlp or youtube-dl.

3D Youtube Downloader has been updated to the version 1.22.2. Starting with this version or one before, this downloader now uses the awesome yt-dlp provided by @nicolaasjan. Unfortunately, they forgot to add some credits to him and a link to his GitHub page. That is a no-go and has of course to be corrected as soon as possible. Because the same applies as always: Honor to whom honor is due.
At this point, I say once again thanks to @nicolaasjan!

Cheers, AstroSkipper

Edited March 6 by AstroSkipper

[AstroSkipper]

Additionally, I filled my second post in this thread with some recommendations for YouTube Downloaders still working under Windows XP (and presumably under Windows Vista, too) and updated the content. Originally, I posted it in @roytam1's browser thread and created this thread short time later. Now, it is in the right place to find it quickly if necessary.

Cheers, AstroSkipper

Edited March 6 by AstroSkipper

[nicolaasjan]

One issue with 3D Youtube Downloader is, that you can´t add custom arguments, like `--embed-thumbnail` (the program doesn't read the yt-dlp config file ).

Or am I missing something?