File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
More 1680 x 1050 wallpaper plz
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CAN someone post some sexy 1680x1050 wallie??
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I suck at backgrounds
>> Alant20
>>237212
Well, that about killed it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> sage Anonymous
Sage for not knowing where the stretch to fit option is. People should stop asking for specific resolutions. After all the shitty resizes I've seen, I'm getting a little annoyed with threads like this.
Resizing algorithms get better, so let's keep images in their original resolution, and resize dynamically, shall we? That way you'll always get the best result possible. And you don't need to ask for specific rez.
How about asking by topic?
>> Anonymous
>>237538You did it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>237538

Problem is, XP doesn't have that kind of functionality. Hence, you fail, GTFO.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>237577
Uhhh what?
>> Anonymous
>>237597
sometimes stretching makes it look... less good.
so isn't it better to be close, so no or little stretching is needed?
>> Anonymous
>>237601
Well with the stretch option you would have to be working with a rez difference of somewhere around 1000 pixels.
Meaning if you have a 1280x800 wallpaper you culd put a 1680x1050 on it and it will look fine.
An 800x600 would look alright too with the stretch option.

But if you put say a 500x300 rex image on your desktop it would look shitty.

So what i'm saying here is it's not that big a deal to get the exact rez of your screen, it won't look horrible if you're off by a pixel or two.
>> Anonymous
The built-in resizer of Windows is not that ideal, but there's a lot of free software (in the GNU sense) that does what you require - even for Windows. Search the web sometime, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised.
>> Anonymous
>>237597
"Stretch" is not equal to "Stretch to Fill"

"Stretch", like its name implies, stretches the image to whatever resolution your screen is, say, a 1680x1050 image will be stretched and have its aspect ratio distorted when using a non 16:10 resolution, say, 1280x960.

"Stretch to Fill" again (found in OSX, don't know about Vista), scales the image to fit the largest dimension on the screen (usually width, unless you're a fag and use vertical) without distorting its aspect ratio.
>> Anonymous
>>237629
It's the exact same thing.

The whole point i'm trying to say is that you don't need the exact resolution of a wallpaper to fit your screen.