[wtallis]

Thanks for pointing that bit out. It would still be useful to see where those other points lie. It seems counter-intuitive that they would need a higher bitrate for 1080p than 1440p when both are encoded to the same quality. Maybe their quality metric is slightly biased in favor of having more pixels and is more concerned with accurate reproduction of high-frequency components of the image than having an artifact-free low noise reproduction at a lower resolution?

Edit: Looking at their animated GIF comparisons, the newer encodes definitely give a much sharper image, but also have a lot more in the way of ugly artifacts:

On the left, under the tree branch: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/1*SQQkYltbVC-HT-l8GpN-7Q.gi...

The right side of the frame: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/1*A37BBzK4Ap8JPhmiUiFKcw.gi...

Many of the areas that should be fairly flat looking: https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/1*qI3EY7HDp3p0gwK9YGqchQ.gi...

There's definitely a lot more ringing and similar artifacts in the newer, lower-bitrate samples despite their overall increase in effective resolution.