Optimising desktop images appearances?

vbimport

#1

I have a bunch of wallpapers that are 1920 x 1200, I get Windows 7 to change them ever 5 mins ('cos they’re all so cool :slight_smile: ).

However, my max screen resolution is 1366 x 768. Is it worth seeing if I can find these wallpapers in the same resolution or at least the same ratio?

Aftrer doing some maths (yes, I’m a Brit :wink: ), I calculate that that wallpapers are 18:5 whereas my max ratio is a rather messy 683:384 or if I lower it to 1360x768 it’s still a rather complex 85:48.

I love these backgrounds and have had them for ages. What’s the best thing that a guy can do with Windows 7 desktop options?


#2

1920:1200 is 1.6, or 16:10 (reduces to 8:5, but represented as it is for the sake of people who know 16:9).

16:9 is 1.77777…, while 1366:768 is 1.7786[blah blah blah], so 1366x768 is roughly equivalent to 16:9. (1360:768 is actually 1.770[blah blah], so isn’t quite as close to 16:9). The difference between 16:9 and 1366:768 should be nearly imperceptible, and might depend more on your display hardware than the original image itself. [Pixels on the screen itself may or may not be square, the graphics card output may be slightly stretched/compacted, the display may be set to stretch/compact the image, etc].

You could redownload the images, such that someone else cropped & resized for the 1366x768 resolution, or you could just use any other larger 16:9 resolution.
Or you could crop & resize them yourself.

Using one of the built-in Windows options for how the wallpaper is displayed will lop off the extra at the top and bottom of the picture, essentially soft-cropping it for you & resampling it to fit the lower resolution. Re-downloading the images could result in a better quality (maybe all the lower resolutions were resized from a large master image of a resolution higher than 1920x1200, or the resizing method was more high-quality), but probably won’t be absolutely necessary.


#3

Hey, thanks for answerimg! :slight_smile:

Look
s like my maths was a bit off then. So now the question is, do down to 760? :eek: :confused:


#4

Eh, it probably isn’t worth it to replace them with lower-res versions. I rarely find that high-res images look poor when made pixel-perfect with a screen’s lower native resolution.