[Lightfoot]

I was thinking of making a picture into a desktop, but I'm not sure what dimensions to use.  I have a CRT square monitor, but I suspect it's possible a majority of computer users now have wide-screen monitors.

Hypothetically, what screen sizes do you think a person should offer for a desktop wallpaper?

[Shara]

1024x768, 1280x1024, 1680x1050, 1920x1080, 1920x1200

[Number6]

My desktop's 1024x768, but images up to 1600x1200 look fine even when resized.  I actually don't know anyone with a widescreen computer (TV yes, computer no), so I don't know what range of sizes they go for.

[Shara]

Quote:
Number6 said:
My desktop's 1024x768, but images up to 1600x1200 look fine even when resized.  I actually don't know anyone with a widescreen computer (TV yes, computer no), so I don't know what range of sizes they go for.

1680x1050 or 1920x1200

[AgentDee]

go to desktop, right click on the monitor, select properties and hit the Settings tab and you will see a slider bar and what your monitor is set to, go nuts and see what works best sizewise .

[Nimrod]

Quote:
Lightfoot said:
I was thinking of making a picture into a desktop, but I'm not sure what dimensions to use.  I have a CRT square monitor, but I suspect it's possible a majority of computer users now have wide-screen monitors.

Hypothetically, what screen sizes do you think a person should offer for a desktop wallpaper?

Don't need to be hypothetical about it - use the highest standard screen ratio that you feel will provide the widest user group.
1024x768 or 1280x1024   are safe bets. Even our 10 year old machine can handle 1024x768, most new machines (depending on video hardware) can get up surprisingly high. It is best to work at the largest and then save out reduced versions.  

Take a look at popular wallpaper / desktop sites and see that they tend to offer a range of sizes. Often they have a 1024, 1200, 1600 width options.

Wide screen is nice but the ratio change is typically not enough to totally change your composition. Also the wide screens are still not as prevalent as one might think.


Other Points:

1) Most (yes most) people have their icons in columns running up the left of the screen. Try not to place graphics such that they will conflict with desktop icons. Leave a gutter of neutral space around the perimeter.

2) Not everyone has 64 bit color, yes many run at 32 or even 16 bit color. I guy at my office runs in 256 color mode! Use a pallet depth about mid range for today - why distribute a 64 bit file size when the end user can't see it. Yes keep a deep palette version for the future - just save the memory.

3) Try offering the same graphic (person, things, etc.) with various backgrounds or at least different colors. Some people may love the character but hate the bright green background. Just have the same thing with a pale cream and a medium red for example.

4) Also - if you are looking for a wide audience try offering an "office safe" or "all ages" version if your graphics may be a bit risque.

5) If you do embed a logo, signature, copyright, web address, stamp, catch phrase, date, or text - please think about composition! If it takes up more than say 5% of the screen it might come across as obnoxious. Desktops are passive sedate things by nature that often are covered by applications. If they are trying to be anything else they are missing their basic function.

6) Last - I would not charge for single "office-safe" versions. If you have a whole collection or "adult" versions of each that is a remote possibility but the market is saturated and people are going to use them because they like that graphic not because they paid for it.
Heck, if I want a graphic background for my own personal use at home and can not find one I like, I simply make one.

[rtpoe]

To Nimrod's excellent points I would add that it should be kept simple. Don't make it so busy (especially around the edges) that the icons are lost in the confusion.

[3deroticer]

I have a 19 widescreen at 1440 X 900

[BustArtist]

1920 x 1200  — 24" iMac

[Clarence]

i knew i had this file somewhere on my harddrive.
attached is a jpg of the different resolutions people use for wallpaper and video.
good to know just how much larger 1600x1200 is compared to 640x480, etc.
also shows the ratios like 16:9, 16:10, 4:3....

[TheHerald]

THANK You! I'm generally familiar with most of what is on that chart (except the PAL standards), but never made a nice chart showing the relationships like that. Well done!

[PET]

that chart is awsome, its a pitty I've never heard about most of them formats before.....are the largest formats anything coming to us common users soon?

[Shara]

actually except for the biggest one (2560x20xx) these are all common, although the 2560x1920 is on 30 inch monitors only

[Palomine]

 I assume that pretty much any image will resize decently since it wouldn't be lowrez to start with, but I'd also say that from everyone's house I visit, the lowest COMMON denominator size wise is still 1024x768. Yes, lotsa folks with new systems have big screens or 16:9 aspect ratio screens, etc... but I suspect that numerically, 1024x768 remains the most widely used, as it will work on everything from old laptops on up.  

[AgentDee]

i have been using the 1024x768 size for many years it looks good and i see stuff on the screen well too.