Hihi. I'm not one to usually start threads but I like credits and I feel that I
need to know about this.
Looking at the gallons of wallpapers in the gallery and being a pretty dodgy
wallpaper..er myself, I can't decide what a good file size for a wallpaper
should be. I've seen wallpapers go from 100kb up to a little less than 1MB. I
use to think that about 100-200kb was the best because it didn't kill your
computer when trying to load it but now it seems that walls are usually about
500-600kb in file size. Now I realise that some walls with more brushwork and
layers will have bigger file sizes but I just want the average one [i.e. not one
that takes a month to make].
Help me out and tell me what should be the best file size.
Filesize depends on both the resolution of the wall (obviously a 1920x1200 wall
will be on average quite a bit larger than your typical 1024x768 wall) but also
the content of the wall.
Since jpegs are flatfiles the number of layers has no effect on filesize.
Rather, it's the content of the image itself that determines filesize. Jpeg
compression works best on images with smooth color transitions (gradients, and
the like) which is why it's the preferred format for photographs and other
related images. (Also, it sucks on red colors, for some reason unfathomable to
me.)
Jpeg compression is very bad if you have a lot of extremely sharp details. For
example, I can have a simplistic vector-based wall with a few gradients clock in
at 200kb, yet my recent Katamari wall, which is intensive pixel art jpeg can't
handle, clocks in at 1.5mb to get the same relative visual quality.
like Tama said, it depends on the colours. If you have a fewer colours that are
more vectored, the sizes are usually smaller than those with lots of filtered
effects, gradients, and stock images that have lots of colour and colour
transition in them. Resolution obviously has an effect as well.
Also, it depends on how the artist converted to JPG format from their PSD format
(or pspimage if you're using PaintShop like me, or whatever extension the
program uses). If they optimized it with minimum compression value (which is
usually recommended to avoid jpg pixelation... esp in the red department), then
the file sizes are bigger (mine are usually around the 1MB area). But if they
just used 'save as' or a higher compression, then the sizes will be much much
smaller. But the effect of that is you may get pixelation around the edges and
details. PNGs are much better in reducing pixelation, but this means the sizes
are much bigger, which is probably why MT doesn't support them.
Personally considering the abundance of storage space availbale these days I
think a wallpaper should be made in the highest resolution possible given the
quality of the source images used to create it, within reason that is. I say
this because while 1024x768 is supposedly the current standard resolution, not
that long ago it was 800x600 and soon it will probably be 1600x1200. For anyone
who has tried using a 800x600 paper on a 1600x1200 screen it can look very
blurred, so by making your wallpapers higher resolutions like 2048x1526 or
1920x1600 are good because they ensure your wallpapers will still look good for
some time into the future, an important investment for anyone serious about
walling.
Considering bandwidth restriction at this point in time I think a good filesize
is about 1-3MB for a relatively detailed wallpaper, while a more simplistic one
can fit into 200kb or less without compromising quality to much, specifically
vector-based walls.
Hihi. I'm not one to usually start threads but I like credits and I feel that I need to know about this.
Looking at the gallons of wallpapers in the gallery and being a pretty dodgy wallpaper..er myself, I can't decide what a good file size for a wallpaper should be. I've seen wallpapers go from 100kb up to a little less than 1MB. I use to think that about 100-200kb was the best because it didn't kill your computer when trying to load it but now it seems that walls are usually about 500-600kb in file size. Now I realise that some walls with more brushwork and layers will have bigger file sizes but I just want the average one [i.e. not one that takes a month to make].
Help me out and tell me what should be the best file size.
well i guess for a standard wallpaper around 4-500kb would be ok IMO
Filesize depends on both the resolution of the wall (obviously a 1920x1200 wall will be on average quite a bit larger than your typical 1024x768 wall) but also the content of the wall.
Since jpegs are flatfiles the number of layers has no effect on filesize. Rather, it's the content of the image itself that determines filesize. Jpeg compression works best on images with smooth color transitions (gradients, and the like) which is why it's the preferred format for photographs and other related images. (Also, it sucks on red colors, for some reason unfathomable to me.)
Jpeg compression is very bad if you have a lot of extremely sharp details. For example, I can have a simplistic vector-based wall with a few gradients clock in at 200kb, yet my recent Katamari wall, which is intensive pixel art jpeg can't handle, clocks in at 1.5mb to get the same relative visual quality.
like Tama said, it depends on the colours. If you have a fewer colours that are more vectored, the sizes are usually smaller than those with lots of filtered effects, gradients, and stock images that have lots of colour and colour transition in them. Resolution obviously has an effect as well.
Also, it depends on how the artist converted to JPG format from their PSD format (or pspimage if you're using PaintShop like me, or whatever extension the program uses). If they optimized it with minimum compression value (which is usually recommended to avoid jpg pixelation... esp in the red department), then the file sizes are bigger (mine are usually around the 1MB area). But if they just used 'save as' or a higher compression, then the sizes will be much much smaller. But the effect of that is you may get pixelation around the edges and details. PNGs are much better in reducing pixelation, but this means the sizes are much bigger, which is probably why MT doesn't support them.
Personally considering the abundance of storage space availbale these days I think a wallpaper should be made in the highest resolution possible given the quality of the source images used to create it, within reason that is. I say this because while 1024x768 is supposedly the current standard resolution, not that long ago it was 800x600 and soon it will probably be 1600x1200. For anyone who has tried using a 800x600 paper on a 1600x1200 screen it can look very blurred, so by making your wallpapers higher resolutions like 2048x1526 or 1920x1600 are good because they ensure your wallpapers will still look good for some time into the future, an important investment for anyone serious about walling.
Considering bandwidth restriction at this point in time I think a good filesize is about 1-3MB for a relatively detailed wallpaper, while a more simplistic one can fit into 200kb or less without compromising quality to much, specifically vector-based walls.