I don't really take notice of details like these, guuuh, but this sounds like a great idea. So go. :DD

The change wont work for me. I don't like working with so much space really.

Personally, this change would work for me--I usually tend to make wallpapers to fit my laptop, and then--depending it they turn out alright or not--I submit them online. Since my screen resolution is 1366 x 768, having to shrink the image to fit 1024 x 768 takes away from the overall work, since everything becomes kinda smushed. So personally, I'm for this change, but really if the majority likes the way things are as they are, then that's perfectly fine too.

~GD

sounds great but the only thing i find may be odd is for those of us (assuming it aint just me) who dont and for whatever reason cant get computer software for editing pics, online editing sites are a little challenging to use in formats larger than 1024 x 768. thats just me though. oh and if any of yall know any online free pic editing sites will you refer them to me. thanks.

I design most of my walls in wide screen and cropping/ cutting them is painful. It's just easier if you do away with any required sizes and only request the largest of each, to generate smaller versions, in my opinion.

I don't care too much about this all in all, but I think having a required sizes isn't the most agreeable thing with every person. It may be hard to crop walls to fit all of the needed sizes. I already make walls at 1600x1200, and I sometimes make them at 1920x1200, but if I find a scan that isn't very large, and I want to make a smaller wall out of it, then it would be very challenging to make it larger without distorting the quality. I'm so-so on the idea. I don't think having so many mandatory wallpaper sizes is going to be enjoyable. But, I don't know for sure.

Whatever works best for the wallpaper artists, I will support.

All of my wallpapers are made in 1024 by 768 since thats the resolution my computer takes. Though I wouldn't mind making wallpapers in 1600 by 1200, I have to agree with getting rid of having a required size or at least having more choices.

I'm a vampire!

I agree with the larger res thing, since my computer has that same res, (and it seems that computer res just keeps getting bigger and bigger o.0). Even though that was my resolution, I still made 1024 x 768 walls.
I definitely think bigger walls are better, though I don't think 1024x768 category should go away.
Required size... why not just get rid of the required size and just give people choice about which size to submit in? That way if people don't want to submit it in 1366 x 768, they can choose a different size.

Well, that's what I think, anyway.

I've been making them in the largest resolutions for all aspect ratios since I changed my walling style a few years back. I've also always been making them in 1336x768 since that resolution was implemented a while ago. So I'm perfectly fine with it.

The only downside I can see for others is that, from what I've seen, most wallpaper artists don't (or rarely) make 1336x768 wallpapers. Making that the required resolution might rub some people the wrong way. Perhaps not have one specific required resolution? Then everyone's free to make whatever size wallpapers they want without being strained by size restrictions.

I do most of my wallpapers in 1920x1200 since it's the biggest, but I also wanted to suggest to not have a required size, it does ruin the wallpaper when you try to crop it down just so you are able to submit the wallpaper. Also, if you make a 1920x1200, the required size (in this case 1366x768) would appear in the thumbnail, not showing all the details the biggest one has. Not having a required size and just submitting the one you actually do, would be better since it would show the entire thing in the thumbnail.

I do like that theO automatically sizes the rest of the lower resolutions, that makes it much easier.

~Lys

The one thing I want to briefly comment on (as some others have, too) is that larger aspect ratios in combination with PNG support might actually decrease the quality on some submissions. I think 1366 by 768 might be in the right area, though.

That said, I think we should go old school: 800 by 600! I'm sure it'll be a hit.

I like making wallpapers of the largest sizes so people who have bigger screened computers can use them. I find it more of a nice thing to do. I search for smaller scans, I'd have more options, but I wouldn't have as much fun with the whole process.

This Momma votes to keep the old way.

LoveInChains

I don't like it. I like the size mine are now.

Honestly...I don't like the required policy because some wallpapers are better in standard, and some are better in widescreen. I think we should have the option for either/or in addition to both, regardless of the 'most popular' or 'trending' current size. I know that I get a bit lazy about submitting because I can't bring myself to alter a wall simply to fit with the 'requirement'.... This might just be my opinion though. >.>;

Fine with me

It seems like a good idea. The wide screen resolution is the most popular nowadays so good luck.Well for me, i use to have 1440x900 screen.
Good luck

This is an interesting debate. I already try to make the highest quality wallpapers I can. I need to make more 1366x768 res wallpapers however. It's not a bad idea but I would like to have more options. I don't like having to make a 4:3 standered wallpaper all the time. They always crop my wallpapers. But anyway I would like to have more options on the max size you can make. Let us pick the size we want to submit. I myself am a fan of 1920x1200 wallpapers. They're big and high quality.

*shrugs* I don't have a problem with it personally since most of my materials are high resolution now, anyways. However, I think having options is better than more requirements. It might force people to create better quality work, but at the same time, that might scare people away. People come here to escape the difficulty of posting on AnimePaper or MiniTokyo. The leeway helps people grow.

I think the main drawback to this is that, even though wallpaper submissions will become more streamlined, the overall number of submissions will likely decrease. A lot of people still make wallpapers at lower resolutions, likely because the source image they're using is small. (Though vectoring is always an option, it's time consuming. I can understand why people wouldn't opt for that.)

I myself would prefer not to have the max size required. 1600 x 1200 and 1920 x 1200 are quite large. If this change were enacted, most of my non-vector wallpapers would only be available in 1366 x 768 and maybe 1280 x 1024.

Also, I feel I should mention that if this were to come into effect, there's the possibility that some users will enlarge their source image so that their wallpaper will fit the largest resolutions. The wallpaper might still look good in lower resolutions, but at higher resolutions, it almost always looks atrocious.

@Angel Zakuro:

I agree with that too! I would be more than pleased to submit only one resolution or two without having a required one... Its breaks my heart too to crop my walls or add those bars. :'(

I already make wallpapers at 1600x1200 as far as that goes

I would say that most here make already wallpapers at the highest resolution, but probably not. (most are those who take more time and effort at them)
Then again this could help in that, but still I don't see much of a change with that, so I am okay with that system.^^

Hmm. I don't really mind too much. I'm happy enough with the current system, but I suppose this new way would simplify things. I don't tend to make larger resolution walls often, but perhaps this could encourage me to try harder.

Does there have to be a 'required resolution' size? Re-sizing is the one thing I dislike about making walls...

Thanks to those that said they agreed with me. <3 Hehe. But um, I did also wanna agree with some other people...that maybe it'd be a good idea if there wasn't a REQUIRED res...like AP and MT...as long as it's an acceptable resolution, then it should be fine. I'm always annoyed when I have to edit my widescreen walls for standard, and add those stupid bars or cut part of it off. >> So yeah...agreeing with people there!

i wouldn't mind the change of the defult size required but i think it's fine just the way it is.
i mean, i usually use 1024x768 but it wouldn't bother me to change :)
if people really want the change then yeah... go for it :)

I always do my wallpapers in 1920x1200 resolution first, since it's the largest and there's much more things to do. But, my laptop resolution is 1366x768 so, if I want to use them myself, I have to make them at that size too.

So, I think that if 1366x768 would be the required size, it would be great. And I'm not against the idea of submitting only full size, that's what I do since forever now anyway. Besides, I believe there will be less low quality wallpapers with a bigger size required since people will have to use quality scans. That might sound hard to beginners, I admit it, but it's also a way to improve :) Working on 1600x1200, for example, offers way more possibilities than on 1024x768.

I've been making my wallpapers 1920x1200 for years now, and it always irked me to crop them down to fit the 4:3 ratio. They look terrible when designed in a widescreen and squashed down.

Screencaps do not make good wallpapers. There I said it. Although the rise of Blu-ray and HD in general is producing better screencaps, by and large, the really "good" artwork tends to be from promotional material, a lot of which is coming out now in high res.

I do see a problem with requiring the largest size because sometimes you just find that absolute perfect image but can't make it large enough. I had to do that once, with the largest size being 1280x800 (back in the day when 1366 wasn't common). This is an outlier but still something to think about.

I'm fully in support of making the default size a widescreen resolution. I dislike the representation my wallpapers get from their 4:3 thumbnail; they sometimes look downright terrible. I will still be accommodating and make 4:3 ratio walls, but for the most part, a shift to fit the changing sizes of monitor would be appreciated.

I really don't mind the change, I will get use to it. But I usually make my walls to be 1600x1200 so it doesn't bother me at all

I have no problem with change. I am doing the 1600x1200 anyway, but the people that make the smaller 1024x768... Hm... I remember when I first started. It took me forever to figure out how to keep the quality of an image as I was enlarging or decreasing its size. I think this vote should lean more toward the members that make the smaller wallies. Not fair to them if the ones that don't have a problem with this out vote them.

Kita

@:

The only problem is that some people use small screenshots for 1024x768; they stretch the screenshots/small images to fill a 1024x768 wallie... So we the quality of wallpapers might decrease even further.

Well, let's look at it as an opportunity to kill low quality blown-up screenshot walls :)
Regarding the fan art thing, it looks fine to me, I can still see the "Block theOtaku designers from using this work in their wallpapers or eCards." message at the bottom of the page under Edit Piece.

I think it's a great idea, I typically make my wallpapers around 2560 x 1600 anyway and have to resize them to submit them here. Though, as Angel Zakuro already said, there's the issue of small stock images...

Just one suggestion I'd like to make: if we're going the 1366 x 768 route, why not also allow 1920 x 1080? My res is 1360 x 768 so I end up resizing and cropping my 2560 x 1600 walls anyway. Sure, the minimum would be 1366 x 768, but I'd also like bigger resolutions (I download the biggest available in spite of not using that resolution, the details are easier to see than in resized versions).

There are points both for and against this change, but the pro ones definitely outweigh the contra ones, IMO. So, I say go for it :]

Seems like a legit idea.

I always make my walls in 1920 by 1200. And since my laptop has the 1366 resolution, I always design those while submitting too since you just have to crop a little. Making it the default required size is a good idea xD

I have no problem with it. I've always thought it was a pain to resize my wallie down to 1024x768 :S
Plus mine are now 1680x1050 anyways~

C yaz!! ^^
Alwayz BELIEVE

I'm fine with this. I usually try to make wallpapers in the largest sizes anyway. I think Angel Zakuro has a good point though, about the quality of the scans used. I am also interested in knowing what this would mean for the already uploaded wallpapers that are of a smaller size. Would they just stay there like that, or would they be resized up?

I do not mind. I make most of my wallpapers 1600x1200.

I've always made them the higher resolutions...and if you go by AP standards, then those are even LARGER. Like huuuuge lol. So these are small by comparison. XD I don't think it'd be such a bad idea. My only concern is with people that have trouble with finding high res images to use, so that instead of finding and using them in the first place, they will use low quality, small res images and size them up (making them look worse) just to fit the larger res.

While usually do make wallpapers at 1600 x 1200 nowadays, there are some instances when I have to scale the size down to 1024 x 768 because the size of the file itself is over 2 megabytes. But then again if TheO is going to start accommodating a larger file size, then maybe it isn't a problem.

I usually design my wallpapers to be 1600x1200 and 1920x1200. My more recent ones are 1600x1200, anyways.

I design my wallpapers at 1600 x 1200 already. *shrugs*