4 ms·

I mean, this is quite fine in my opinion. 1080p is plenty of quality, and if you can afford a 4k display you can probably pony up for youtube premium. 4k is pre

I mean, this is quite fine in my opinion. 1080p is plenty of quality, and if you can afford a 4k display you can probably pony up for youtube premium. 4k is pretty much a "premium" content resolution anyway.

selfhoster11 4y ago
That argument doesn’t hold any water. You shouldn’t be punished for simply having a higher resolution display.
- fomine3 4y ago
  It's not punished, just watch 1080p
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    Degradation of image quality is the punishment.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      This comes with the service. There is no punishment. Today words like HD, UHD, HDR, 1080p etc. are just marketing speech. There is no more a certain value associated with them.
    - fomine3 4y ago
      You can watch 1080p video on 4K monitor for almost same quality as who use 1080p monitor. It's non fractional scaling.
jdboyd 4y ago
The local walmart has 3 55" TV options for under $300 that are 2160p displays, and even more 43" options that are under $200. This is not a premium feature in TVs anymore. You can argue that it is a premium content feature and NetFlix would certainly agree. But today you can shoot 4k on a new mid-tier cellphone, or for even less money on an older used flagship phone, and edit 4k video on just about any used business laptop of the last 5-8 years. It feels weird to call this premium with how accessible creating 4k video is. Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation. I don't know what the acceptable limit is, but 5-10 ads at the beginning is clearly way too many and much more of a problem. I really want reasonable competition. I don't consider Floatplane or Vimeo to be that competition.
- approxim8ion 4y ago
  > You can argue that it is a premium content feature. That's pretty much what I'm arguing, really. From a sensible viewing distance (8-10ft), 1080p and 2160p do not have huge differences in quality, and a lot of these TVs have some form of upscaling that achieves varying degrees of success in making lower-resolution content look better. Of course, it's not "4k" 4k, but I feel really this marginal gain is pretty much the perfect kind of thing to put behind a premium paywall. > Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation. Agreed, that is awful. > Floatplane is a competitor to Patreon if anything, in my opinion. Vimeo is just too far behind to ever be serious competition.
- Mindwipe 4y ago
  > But today you can shoot 4k on a new mid-tier cellphone, or for even less money on an older used flagship phone, and edit 4k video on just about any used business laptop of the last 5-8 years. You can, but you aren't really gaining any substantive clarity on a cellphone because the lens is the resolution limiter more than the sensor.

selfhoster11 4y ago

That argument doesn’t hold any water. You shouldn’t be punished for simply having a higher resolution display.

fomine3 4y ago
It's not punished, just watch 1080p
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  Degradation of image quality is the punishment.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    This comes with the service. There is no punishment. Today words like HD, UHD, HDR, 1080p etc. are just marketing speech. There is no more a certain value associated with them.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    You can watch 1080p video on 4K monitor for almost same quality as who use 1080p monitor. It's non fractional scaling.

jdboyd 4y ago

The local walmart has 3 55" TV options for under $300 that are 2160p displays, and even more 43" options that are under $200. This is not a premium feature in TVs anymore. You can argue that it is a premium content feature and NetFlix would certainly agree. But today you can shoot 4k on a new mid-tier cellphone, or for even less money on an older used flagship phone, and edit 4k video on just about any used business laptop of the last 5-8 years. It feels weird to call this premium with how accessible creating 4k video is. Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation. I don't know what the acceptable limit is, but 5-10 ads at the beginning is clearly way too many and much more of a problem. I really want reasonable competition. I don't consider Floatplane or Vimeo to be that competition.

approxim8ion 4y ago
> You can argue that it is a premium content feature. That's pretty much what I'm arguing, really. From a sensible viewing distance (8-10ft), 1080p and 2160p do not have huge differences in quality, and a lot of these TVs have some form of upscaling that achieves varying degrees of success in making lower-resolution content look better. Of course, it's not "4k" 4k, but I feel really this marginal gain is pretty much the perfect kind of thing to put behind a premium paywall. > Personally, I'm more annoyed at their increase in ads recently than at this limitation. Agreed, that is awful. > Floatplane is a competitor to Patreon if anything, in my opinion. Vimeo is just too far behind to ever be serious competition.
Mindwipe 4y ago
> But today you can shoot 4k on a new mid-tier cellphone, or for even less money on an older used flagship phone, and edit 4k video on just about any used business laptop of the last 5-8 years. You can, but you aren't really gaining any substantive clarity on a cellphone because the lens is the resolution limiter more than the sensor.