Nah, for stuff I plan to watch on my bedroom projector especially, I don’t bother with quality that will drive up the file size.

Only when the artifacts in 4k look bad - like black squares on a black background due to compression. 1080p in that case is preferable.

I prefer the opposite. I want the best quality I can get often 4K remux. Storage is cheap nowadays and I don’t mind waiting a fee days for a movie to download. Also I do have a 500/500 connection which helps.

@VitabytesDev

You aren’t alone. I prefer 360 or 480 p
Because:

1. It’s faster and not much difference I still get the content/knowledge
2. It reduces my carbon footprint

I like to watch TV shows in the background where I’m not going to be watching the screen obsessively, so I have several shows in 480P or sub-480P. There are also some shows where the “official” HD versions are just awful (most 90s sitcoms) or the show was made for 4:3 and has a different feel converted to 16:9 (MASH, The Wire).

Going beyond that though, I spent years on a really limited connection (2.6m down/400k up) and my instinct for saving bandwidth and storage space is still there, along with my need to pay it forward since I ain’t no leech. I’ve become fond of making what I call “Bonsai Encodes”, where the files are small enough to be sent over damn near anything. With mono Opus and VP9 video you can cram 45 minutes of perfectly watchable content into a sub-25mb file that’ll play in Discord, with VTT subtitles even (though those won’t play in Discord itself). Looks a bit like watching it on an old tube TV, but it’s watchable.

That’s less of an opinion and more of a hardware restriction, isn’t it?

If I had a 5 Mbps connection or no display that can display 4k, I also would not download in 4k.

I usually go for 720p to 1080p, as my monitor is at 1080p. I wouldn’t really compromise quality further. But even if I had a 4k screen, I probably wouldn’t go for 4k cuz downloads take too long. What I’m saying is I like balance

Depends on the media.
Minimum it has to be web-dl and 1080p.

For media that needs it or I want to (e.g. Interstellar), I will search high bitrate web-dl/bluray or a remux.
If it’s something I will for certain only watch once, I’ll be fine with a regular 1080p mid bitrate file.

Maybe you’re not noticing the difference between 720p to 1080p is due to the decoding used. The rips with a lower file size often get there by means of compression, and some uploaders (such as YIFY) heavily compress the videos to where I don’t even notice much of a difference, however I’m going to assume you’re not downloading the 3GB (average size for HQ) 1080p film.
Then again eyesight plays a role along with display.

I wouldn’t bother with 4K usually, however once I upgraded to a 1440 monitor downscaling from 4K actually provides a fair bump in overall sharpness and detail (some films more than others), however the file size is usually over 10GB per film.

Nope. I have fast internet and good displays and I still prefer 720p video. I just don’t see the benefit of multiplying the filesize by 4 to see marginally more detail. Even 4k, if I wanted to have a 4k display, I’ve seen people’s displays and after the initial disorientation and crispness, the appeal wears off. 720p is perfectly adequate.

I’m with you. 720p unless I can’t find lower than 1080 — for my setup there isn’t much point. The TRaSH guide parameters make my head ache thinking how much I’d be shelling out on bandwidth and storage for no discernible difference on my home theatre.

I do have a 4k tv, and a 1080p one. But personally I don’t see big difference on 720p vs 1080p vs 4k. I have to be like 4 feet from the tv to notice it. 720p is sufficient.

I prefer 1080p but if not available then 720p is perfectly fine as well. 4k is overkill and I don’t even have a monitor that could play it at native resolution. Where I do prefer “lower quality” though is framerate. I don’t like how 60fps looks so I force YouTube to play videos at 24fps.

You’re not alone.

On a good large screen, 1080p is a noticeable upgrade from 720p.
But the distance you’d have to sit at, to get much out of 2160p over 1080p, is just way too close.
However the High Dynamic Range that comes with 4K formats and releases IS a big difference.

On the other hand, storage is pretty cheep. A couple cents per GB really.
But you’re talking more about bandwidth, which can be expensive.

But yeah. You’re not alone.

Not just you. Low(er) quality downloads are still a huge part of the torrent scene, see how popular most 720p YIFY uploads are even though their encoder quality is pretty garbage. Most people in general want a fast download and are viewing on a small laptop or even phone screen and don’t give a rats ass about fidelity, LQ works perfectly fine for this. Even I’ll grab a LQ once in a while if it’s something my girl and I want to watch that night and I didn’t plan ahead.

The desire for high quality uploads is more for people running home setups like Plex, where it’s better to keep a HQ source file and have it transcoded to lower resolutions by your home server setup as necessary. They generally aren’t storage constrained as an 8tb hard drive for a normal PC is fairly cheap these days. I’d wager maybe <30% of torrenters actually go after ultra HQ uploads based off seeder numbers.

Personally I stick to stuff that is at least 1080p with HDR and H265 encode preferred, because I archive most everything I download due to similar problems with internet speed. Over maybe 12 years of torrents I’ve amassed a hair over 5tb of content, and that’s a LOT of movies l, it all fits on a single $120 external HDD.