File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
If I have a 1600x1200 wall I wanna put on a 1024x768 desktop, would it be better to stretch the 1600 to fit or should I resize it to 1024? If I should resize what program should I use? Next 5 posts will be contributions so that this question may answered.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>265305
Well, I'd resize it, because that way the OS doesn't have to redraw it each time.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>265311

Isn't that only a problem if you have a slow comp? When I try both the 1600 and the 1024 there IS a difference but I'm sure how it's supposed to look (if the 1600 looks better or is it that the 1024 has some quality loss etc.)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>265312
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm posting a few more so somebody please answer?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Atomsk !FGGeNOuScA
If you have a good image editor (like Photoshop) you're probably marginally better off resizing them in there - but the difference is negligable. I'd just let the OS resize them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>265311
Is partially correct. Every time you open a JPG, change it and resize it, it'll reduce the quality slightly. 1024x768 & 1600x1200 are the same ratio. So...if you have a slow machine, resize & save as PNG. If not, just do stretch to fit.
>> Atomsk !FGGeNOuScA
That said, make note that if you're resizing any 1280x1024 images, that it's not actually true 4:3 ratio like 1600x1200 and 1024x768 - the true 4:3 ratio is actually 1280x960, but for some reason the former became the standard.

But if you're going straight from 1600x1200 to 1024x768, the ratio should be fine. There may be a small difference between resizing them or not, but it's up to you really. Personally I wouldn't, because it means that either you've gotta make a second, smaller copy of every image you want to use on your desktop, OR you resize the originals and then when you upgrade your resolution when you get a new monitor or something, your collection will be useless.

So I'd just let the OS resize them automatically, but that's me.
>> Anonymous
>>265343
>>265345

A million thanks to you both. But I was wondering why you said that Atomsk is partially correct? Did you mean that, no matter how you resize something, even in photoshop, there will be quality loss?
>> Anonymous
>>265349

Assuming I plan on using that wall ONLY for a long time, would I be able to resize it with photoshop assuming I've never even used it before? Or is it as simple as say, resizing with Irfanview?
>> Anonymous
>>265350
Same anon as>>265345here. I didn't say Atomsk was incorrect, just the earlier anon.The quality loss is in not having 4:3 (which is not a problem for you) OR saving the JPEG after you've edited it (since it has to recompress it as a JPEG). As for what Atomsk said, yeah, he's right. Just let the OS do it.
>> Atomsk !FGGeNOuScA
>>265350
He was actually replying to>>265311

But yeah, you will lose some quality every time you save a jpg. If you use a good program like Photoshop and know what you're doing (saving at 100% quality) then it's pretty much unnoticable though.
>> Atomsk !FGGeNOuScA
lol, too many people replying at once.

Short answer: just keep the large images, they're better, and let the OS resize them automatically.
>> Anonymous
>>265358
Yep.
>> Anonymous
>>265355

Whoops I assumed you were replying to his post since it was right above.

>>265358

Ok then, I'll just let the OS do it, thanks to you both for the help.
>> Anonymous
It depends a little on what OS you are using-- some are better at scaling images than others. But since you're scaling them down, not up, it shouldn't matter too much. Just let the OS do it, and if you notice any problems then scale it in Photoshop or some other image manipulation program on the highest quality settings. But save the original!
>> Anonymous
I always set my wallpaper through Irfanview, which then automatically saves a bmp copy in its app data folder for the OS's use. So I usually do resize, crop, sharpen, and then set as wallpaper.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I have Windows XP, and the results from stretching wallpapers down are made of failure. It looks so terrible (pic related), I've taken the time to manually resize my 2000+ wallpapers.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Moar examples.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Last example.

So yeah, maybe you're lucky and your OS can resize much better than mine. Like I said though, I have XP. Most likely if you're running Vista, your monitor's easily capable of resolutions higher than 1024x768.

My suggestion's get Paint Shop Pro for something like this. It's more user-friendly than Photoshop, but still gets the job done along with any minimal editing you may want to do.
>> Anonymous
>>265643
actually get a wallpaper changing program
they are good at resizing pics unlike xp
>> Anonymous
>>265749
Recommend me a good program?
>> Anonymous
>>265749
Recommend me a good program pl0x?
>> Anonymous
>>265812
irfan view
>> Anonymous
>>265875

OP here. Paint Shop pro is a lot better than irfanview. Just go to image, then resize, and use bicubic resample. It keeps the original intact.
>> Anonymous
>>265879
irfan view is free and just a few mb
>> Anonymous
>>265904

Paint shop pro is free if you torrent it (isohunt.com)
>> Anonymous
Plus with PSP, you can make alterations as well, such as simple detextings. It's also more user-friendly than Photoshop.