3 ms·
It doesn't make much sense to compare 720p to 720p like that. What matters is the bitrate. So the better question is - does youtube offer better quality video a
by The_Colonel 2y ago
It doesn't make much sense to compare 720p to 720p like that. What matters is the bitrate. So the better question is - does youtube offer better quality video at a given bitrate constraint now in comparison to the past?
- Dylan16807 2y agoI am comparing the maximum quality available. I don't much care that today's 1300kbps video looks better than 2009's 1300kbps video. I care that they used to offer higher quality, and now they don't. I am not bitrate-limited, or at least my bitrate limit is higher than youtube would ever consider going. What matters is the bitrate, and they're being overly stingy on bitrate.
- The_Colonel 2y agoOk, this wasn't clear to me. Perhaps it was a video with too few views and thus not considered worth spending storage on? I mean, popular videos on youtube have up to 4K and pretty high bitrate.
- sambazi 2y agoseems more like gog/yt shifted bitrate/resolution downwards because pleps demand 4k, and now the "High Definition" version that was good enough for cinemas looks like crap.
- Dylan16807 2y agoIt has 2.6 million views. But the source was 720p, and youtube's bandwidth tiers are tied directly to resolution and most of them are stingy.