File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I think we should raise the minimum size requirement for /w/ to 1600x1200. I run in 1280x1024 myself, and frankly, since most of the wallpapers on this board are 1024x768, it takes me forever to find a decent wallpaper that isn't worthless to me. 1600x1200 is probably going to be the standard non-widescreen aspect ratio for at least a few more years, so that would make a good base.

Why make it the minimum? Simple - anyone with a free image manipulation program can downsize a wallpaper to suit their needs, no matter what their resolution is... But once a wallpaper is stuck at a certain size, there's no making it bigger. That's why there's so many useless 800x600 walls floating around out there (and so many requests for bigger sizes): people didn't have the foresight to think ahead.

What say you, /w/? I say we should become trendsetters and start working to making wallpapers easily accessable for as many people as possible. If not knowing how to resize properly is really that big of a deal, I can write a simple tutorial to help people out.

1024x768 is on its way out. We need to get with the times if we're going to keep this board as vibrant and useful as it should be.

This is Anonymous, signing off.
>> Anonymous
Okay. From one point of view, I agree. Too many people these days only create wallpapers at 1024x768 and think that's suitable for everyone.

But on the other hand, there are lots of otherwise very good wallpapers made back in the day when 1024x768 was considered a good resolution, and are still perfectly good for those who still use 1024x768. It is a tad unfair that people would be unable to post these, which are still useful to people. And before anyone points out that people should just stop using 1024x768, there are often good reasons for using it; for example if they own a laptop which has a native resolution of 1024x768.

And in any case, if there has to be a larger minimum res for /w/, it should be 1280x1024 for the users of 5:4 displays. Resizing down is all well and good, but it's a bit nicer to have wallpapers that are the right aspect ratio.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>151699
As a user of 1280x1024 myself, this is an issue I've thought about a lot, but I just think that since it's so easy to resize a 1600x1200, I'd prefer that people post that, so I can save it for future use when I upgrade. (Yes, I do keep two copies of each of my wallpapers.)

For example, it took me less than a minute to resize my OP to 1365x1024, and then crop the image to be aesthetically pleasing. There's very little information lost this way, and there are very few wallpapers for which this technique doesn't work. Of course, having a clean, unaltered copy means I can also just use it in its original aspect ratio and deal with the black bars on the top and bottom. So having wallpapers in 1600x1200 just gives you so many more options than keeping one in a lower resolution does.
>> Anonymous
i agree too even though my computer is 1024x768 if i make a wallpaper i make it at 1600x1200 since i know it looks better for most and it's much easier to make a wallpaper a lower res the it is to make it a higher res...
>> Anonymous
I think 4chan should continue to allow even the 800x600 walls, but whenever someone posts something 1024x768 or lower, they get mocked automatically when the image is uploaded

Mocking. Lots of Mocking.
>> Splurd
     File :-(, x)
nice self centered ness going around. Oh I got a spiffy new monitor and I'm emo that this nice wall papaer but the poor sod made it in a lower resolution.

Thats a really harsh way of putting it but thats how I see it. Not everyone uses high resolutions, and there are alot of non high resolution wall papers. If you make the minimum posting size a high resolution, then alot of wall papers will never ever be posted and then what will be the point of this board? an elitist club for the high resolution people?

Whilst I agree that when making a wall papaer, a person should aim to make it in a 1600x1200 size or similar. But to limit a board to such a size... just limits the wall papers and doesnt achieve much else.
>> Anonymous
>>151700
As a user of 1280x1024 myself, this is an issue I've thought about a lot, but I just think that since it's so easy to resize a 1600x1200, I'd prefer that people post that, so I can save it for future use when I upgrade.


Amen, brother, amen.
>> Anonymous
I agree.

>>151710Please don't make it sound like we're all a bunch of George W. Bush idiots.
>> Anonymous
my fucking eyes can't see shit in 1600x1200

sage.
>> Anonymous
Who decided 1280x1024 should be a resolution anyway?

800 / 600 = 4/3
1024 / 768 = 4/3
1600 / 1200 = 4/3

1280 / 1024 = 5/4 ?!?!?!

Try 1280 / *960* ( = 4/3), mmkay?
>> Anonymous
>>151737
For LCD monitors which are actually 5:4 in size maybe?
>> Splurd
     File :-(, x)
I dont dispute the fact that higher res wallpapers are better, its just that to limit the board to be high res only is plain retarded.

What if a person asks for a obscure anime wallpaper, and the only ones around are like 1024x768 or similar. Since the board is restricted, I cant post it, and we'll end up having to post it on another board.

I actually agree with the orignal poster, excet for his first line of >>I think we should raise the minimum size requirement for /w/ to 1600x1200.
>> Anonymous
>>151710

I agree. Elitism is the first step on the road to faggotry. That aside, I think the most important thing for the wallpaper boards is to make sure only wallpaper-sized images of the correct aspect ratio and category get posted. For example, if we raise the minimum image size too high, what will happen to all those tilable wallpapers? To make them that large and still need to be tiled would defeat their purpose entirely. Again, what about people with old / legacy hardware? A wallpaper is a wallpaper, no matter how you dress it.

HOWEVER, I do think that we need more higher resolutioned wallpapers. MUCH more. While I understand the fact that a majority of wallpapers are usually made in 1024, and that most of the papers amde within the last five years are all mainly 1024, larger will always be better.
>> Anonymous
>>151738
Then why do people with 4:3 monitors use it too?

Wait, I know the answer, because they didn't actually think about it and just blindly used it, and have been using a skewed resolution all this time. WTG.
>> Anonymous
>>151779
The answer I have for everything that doesn't make a great deal of sense works here. "Because people are stupid."
>> Anonymous
>>151781
That's my favorite answer.
>> Anonymous
Resolution fags can fuck off.
>> Anonymous
Boy, a lot of hate in a thread for someone who started out with a perfectly reasonable, logical suggestion.

Kind of funny that everyone agreeing with me is being civil, and it's the people who don't agree who are throwing insults around.
>> Anonymous
I also run 1280x1024, and I would actually prefer that the minimum size by size be something around 1600x1200. While I enjoy a good bit of what's below that, I often frown on 1024x768 or 800x600 images that I can't use much of anywhere. Thought I'd add my random two cents - my apologies if I've offended anyone.
>> Anonymous
A perfectly reasonable and logical request would be supported by some facts. Facts concerning the current aspect ratios in use today and perhaps focus on the average resolution. After identifying the average people would move the acceptable limits in both directions trying to accommodate as many users as possible ( which this board does ).

But you would rather try to pretend like you are something you have not learned to be.
>> Anonymous
>>151807
You're missing the point, which is that the best way to accomidate as many users as possible is by posting wallpapers in as high a resolution as possible, and that it's good to encourage that.

With very few exceptions (the very small percentage of the population that uses higher-resolution or widescreen monitors) anyone can adapt a 1600x1200 wallpaper for their own use. An 800x600 wallpaper, on the other hand, is only usable by a very small minority.

I'm not trying to exclude people who use that resolution, I'm simply trying to move the way we think about wallpapers in a progressive direction.

Perhaps another board devoted to 1024x748 wallpapers would be a good way to ease the transition. That way, people who make wallpapers would be encouraged to make them higher resolution, people who use the lower resolution will have a place they can go for vintage wallpapers, and those who use higher resolutions wouldn't have to wade through a sea of unusable wallpapers to find something they can use.

Or, if you don't like that, create a separate board specifically for high-resolution wallpapers. /whr/. I'd be happy with that.
>> Testarossa Fate
>>151815

I think wallpaper is wallpaper, either 1024x768 or 1600x1200, I use whatever fits best on my machine, the resolution is 1600x1200 but if the wallpaper I like is 1024x768, photoshop for the win.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is now a thread for 1024x768 wallpapers.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
you've made your point Anonymous... now wake up to today's tech
>> Anonymous
It's almost worthless to argue about it here because 4chan doesn't, with few exceptions, actually make these wallpapers.

And frankly we don't need any more rules than we have already. If you don't like 1024, move the fuck on. I have a 1280 myself and I have no trouble finding decent walls here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
we don't need retarded rules like that nor do we need another and ultimately redundant imageboard. just scroll down whenever you see a low res thread.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
hey you, enough. your pettiness is embarassing
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Thread full, darn! By the way, my resolution is 1280 x 1024.
>> Anonymous
as a user of an aspect ratio which is not commonly supported, i hereby give this thread a thumbs down..

though, 1600x1200 walls wouldn't hurt ;)
>> Anonymous
>>151959
Why? Why would you do that?
>> Taco
Out of curiousity, how the hell big are your monitors to where you can actually SEE that kind of resolution? I've got vision problems, so 1024x768 on a 19" monitor is fine for me, but anything more than that is out of the question.
>> Anonymous
>>151979

I've got a 19-inch, and 1280x1024 is perfect.
>> Anonymous
>>151979

In before people waving their e-penii at this guy about how awesome their widescreen monitors are.


In response to the thread, though... go fuck yourselves. Who gives a shit if a paper is in whatever resolution you set your monitor to? Resize it to make it whatever you want. Can't resize it? Then I would reccomend learning how to use your computer instead of talking about how awesome your 3100x5700 ultra-widescreen Mega-Virgin (tm) monitor is. We don't fucking care.
>> UTMorpheus !!NP8vNCbpRgc
I need some good 1280x768 walls for my 27" widescreen LCD
>> Anonymous
>>151989I would reccomend learning how to use your computer instead of talking about how awesome your 3100x5700 ultra-widescreen Mega-Virgin (tm) monitor is. We don't fucking care.

A_FUCKING-MEN, BROTHA! THEY HAVE THAT OBSCENE ATHLON OR MAC WITH THE STUPID PCI-E TURBO-BLOW - HOW ABOUT LEARNING HOW TO USE THAT SHIT INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR FREE HANDOUTS?!
>> Anonymous
>>151989
The point of this thread is that wallpapers that are too BIG for your monitor CAN'T be resized. Well, they can, but trying to stretch a wallpaper out like that mutiliates it.

Therefore, it's best to have wallpapers as big as possible so that you're always going to be able to make them fit your desktop no matter what size monitor you have.
>> Anonymous
>>151989
Fucking QFT

OP is a faggot. Post wallpapers in a wallpaper board. Period.
>> Anonymous
>>152000

You meant SMALL didn't you
>> Anonymous
>>152000
other away around, fuckwit. wallpapers that are too SMALL for your monitor CAN'T be resized. ensuing distortion, etc.

i love high resolutions myself but i hate people who request "specific" resolutions and free handouts after spending a fortune on their graphics card and monitor combo. get a big image and crop and resize (down.) as the other guy said, learn to use your computer.

p.s. read what you post before clicking submit next time.
>> Anonymous
>>152001
I agree. sounds like someone doesn't know how to use daddy's comupter.
>> Anonymous
i say raise the minumum to 1024x768 and then mock anyone who posts anything less than 1280x960 unless it's significantly awesome. that would encourage the posting of higher-res walls, while not disallowing the posting of great walls that were made too soon.
>> Anonymous
>>152005
>>152004
>>152003
Yes, I meant small. Forgive me for mistyping. It's just the same point that I've been trying to make through this entire thread.

I'm convinced that none of you know how to read. I just don't see how anyone could miss the point as consistantly as you all are.
>> Anonymous
I'm convinced you're fucking brain dead since you seem to be missing everyone else's much more valid counter-points.
>> Anonymous
>>152014
I've refuted your counter-points by suggesting a separate board as a compromise.
>> Anonymous
>>152015
perhaps large awesomeness should go to /hrw/ or /hr/ and let someone with TALENT post the ensuing wallpaper here
>> Anonymous
>>152015
redundant, needless
>> Anonymous
less arguing more wallpaper
>> Anonymous
you are all faggots
>> Anonymous
People whose eyes hurt or can't see larger than 1280x1024 need eye surgery. 1600x1200 is good for everyone, since it can be scaled down. It even looks alright on my 1920x1200 laptop. Less than 1600 however looks awful. Sometime in the future we'll all have massive resolutions, so wallpaper makers need to jump on the higher res bandwagon now.
>> Anonymous
at this point i have to ask, do you guys just sit and look at your wallpaper? for shit's sake people, it's the pic under the browswer window that you barely if at all see if you are actually using your computer
>> Anonymous
I'll go along with the higher screen resoultion if someone buys me a new laptop that has it. Thanks in advance.
>> Anonymous
>>152071
You don't need a computer with a larger resolution to use a higher-resolution wallpaper. You can just resize it.

...which is... the whole point... of the fucking thread.
>> Anonymous
>>151945
where'd ya get that? It is wicked sexy.
>> Anonymous
Why don't we petition 4chan to add a filter or search feature that lets one set a minimum and/or maximum resolution? Problem solved, n'est-ce pas?
>> Anonymous
>>152099
tl;dr
>> Anonymous
>>152099
I think this imageboard engine doesn't do that too easily, this one sucks ass too.
>> Anonymous
Minumium resolution to 1025x769 -> no 1024x768 trash anymore
>> Anonymous
so would we then be expected to keep all our 1600x1200? even though we have resised tehm... waist of space if you ask me.
>> Anonymous
>>151979
17" LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024. Running it at anything else looks like arse, so 1280x1024 it is for me.

>>152033
That's not a really realistic view. A lot of people who have vision problems are unable to simply get them fixed with surgery for a variety of reasons, among them being previous botched attempts at eye surgery. Another point is monitor size; sure 1280x960 is perfectly fine on a 19" monitor, but even for someone with perfectly good vision 1280x960 on a 15" monitor is uncomfortable to use. "Buy a new monitor, then" is not an especially useful solution either; there are often good reasons for sticking with an existing smaller monitor.

>>152153
Not a problem if your wallpaper changer software does a decent job of resizing on the fly. Suitable software is either available for or built into all the major operating systems, so it's really not an issue.
>> lemmy !uRes8iyD.o
gb2 /hr/
>> Anonymous
Bump
>> Anonymous
wah it doesn't fit my screen

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME
>> Anonymous
>>152289
My suggestion is for the good of ALL of 4chan, not just myself. My suggestion will benefit EVERYBODY.

Why can't any of you see that?
>> Anonymous
>>152125
Good idea, seconded!
>> Anonymous
so annoying!
>> Anonymous
You make the min size 1600x1200 and you'll just get people resampling up to 1600x1200.
>> Anonymous
>>152385
And that should be bannable.
>> Anonymous
seconded
>> Anonymous
very bad idea. i use a program called wallpaper master that switches my walls and it can shrink walls to fit but it also somehow blows up smaller ones to fit WITHOUT distortion or pixelation whatever you wanna call it. i run at 1280x960 and you wouldnt know that some backrounds i have were 1024x768 unless you looked at its properties. wallpaper master ONLY downfall is lack of PNG support...
>> Anonymous
>>152795
Bullshit. It's impossible to scale an image up without some distortion.
>> Anonymous
ya thats what i thought, but it does it somehow. if you dont believe me try it yourself. its probably doing some trick like rendering the backround at a lower res then the rest of the screen.
>> Anonymous
>>153013

Please reference

>>153102

If you honestly don't think the second, third and fourth wallpapers don't look like complete ass, I suggest you either get a new monitor or get your eyes checked.

Even the 1280x960 one looks like trash when scaled up.
>> Anonymous
>>152795
>>153000

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-interpolation.htm