WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

706

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)

[–] 0 pt

But if the user watches at the second highest resolution, conversion must take place while bandwidth costs still are high. At the highest resolution, no conversion at all must take place.

[–] 0 pt

That's true, but it's the cost of providing that resolution. Most videos are 1080 max, and usually less.

In any case, retaining each resolution to be served saves CPU power while expanding storage requirements exponentially.