Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

574

While storing videos every quality option (144p, 240p, 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p, the last of which depends on the original video's resolution) like YouTube and Dailymotion would be expensive, I suggest at least a 240p (or 360p) watch quality option which could actually reduce costs because of a part of viewers choosing it rather than the full original resolution. 144p would often be too low to be watchable, but 240p is just enough for many videos.

Sometimes, I am totally fine watching at 240p, and it would reduce stress on data plans for mobile watchers, speed up downloading for already throttled users, as well as , which is useful for seeking through long videos.

While storing videos every quality option (144p, 240p, 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p, the last of which depends on the original video's resolution) like YouTube and Dailymotion would be expensive, I suggest at least a 240p (or 360p) watch quality option which could actually **reduce** costs because of a part of viewers choosing it rather than the full original resolution. 144p would often be too low to be watchable, but 240p is just enough for many videos. Sometimes, I am totally fine watching at 240p, and it would reduce stress on data plans for mobile watchers, speed up downloading for already throttled users, as well as [allow speeding up playback further](/p/172925), which is useful for seeking through long videos.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 0 pt

But I guess more than streaming the unconverted video. Needs more bandwidth, but I think that is less expensive than power needed for real-time downscaling.

[–] • 1 pt

High bandwidth requires more energy from the server, and for the route as well. Scaling requires more energy at the server only, but again it isn't as much as you think.

Go to MSpaint and lower the resolution of a large picture vs raising the resolution; observe which one takes longer.

[–] • 0 pt

This would mean that the platform's costs for watching at the second highest resolution (e.g. 1440p for 2160p video) would be the highest.

[–] • 0 pt

You aren't given the option to scale above the upload resolution, nor would it matter because your computer scales the video to whatever resolution you want anyway.