Subject:
|
Re: Another wallpaper
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:01:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
462 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.space, Paul Hartzog wrote:
> Dan
> all your wp's are great but if they aren't at least 1600x1200
> they aren't very useful. it's easy to scale down from that
> but you can't scale up, alas.
Geez! Do you have your resolution set at 1600 X 1200?! I can't even read
anything at that resolution. I'm at 1152 X 864 on my PC and 800 X 600 scales
pretty good. I know scaling up adds more grain but it gives it a film-like
quality...at least on my screen. Maybe using Windows XP has something to do with
it? Anyway, Id rather not upload files that big since I'm on dial-up AND 1600 X
1200 is just ridiculously too big to work with at this time. Still, tell me if
this is any better...
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/DanJassim/Artwork/wallpaper7a.jpg
Copy it if you dig it or let me know if there's an image you'd like bigger
because I will delete it in a day or so.
--Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Another wallpaper
|
| "Daniel Jassim" <danieljassim@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HHKL2G.1uMI@lugnet.com... (...) scales (...) do with (...) 1600 X (...) me if (...) Dan. Whadup. My evil new internet connection is turning me into a night owl. I run at 1280x960 on a (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another wallpaper
|
| (...) Dan all your wp's are great but if they aren't at least 1600x1200 they aren't very useful. it's easy to scale down from that but you can't scale up, alas. -p (21 years ago, 5-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
