i am suggesting a move to make 1600x1200 the minimum acceptable wallpaper size.

these days 1024x768 resolution is a rare monitor resolution and used by few too many.
since 1280x960 and 1280x1024 are very close in size [and different aspect ratios]a move to 1600 x 1200 makes sense.

i have always used 1600x1200 as my canvas on a 1024x768 and 1280x1024 monitor. and 1600x1200 allows most of the MT members to use the created wallpapers.

at the very least 1024x768 should be considered unacceptable.

Although I agree that more people should be designing at a larger size, I must disagree with your assertation that 1024x768 is a dying breed:
50% of visitors to DA! register in my stats as using 1024x768. (Yet more amazing is the fact that 800x600 is the 3rd most common size weighing in at nearly 8%! For DA! the second most common was 1280x1024 at 20%)
Based on that, I don't think it's safe to consider 1024x768 an unacceptable resolution for submission as a lot of people continue to use this setting. What I think should be done is to encourage more and more wallers who do wall at that resolution to start walling at a larger size - more of a grassroots campaign than an executive decision.

i am suprised, Tama-Neko that 50% of your vistors are at 1024 x 768. so i suppose 1600x1200 is your most dl size? i for one,appreciate that you are kind enough to host various sizes of your walls as I do not own a wide-screen monitor.

but- i could perhaps appeal to MT's quest to host the highest quality walls etc and Firefox's resizing and interpolation abilities.

1024x768 is certainly not a dying breed, considering all of the Apple laptops using this resolution. Everywhere I go around me people use ibooks.
AS may not have as many visitors as DA! but we also have a high percentage of visitors downloading 1024 res.

Though I would love to see more wallpapers at 1600x1200 there are people with smaller computer screens and that fits them just fine. So we just have to leave it to the creator

Backing up with statistics. I'll reinforce Tama evidence as AniStudios.Com also has around 43% of the visitors using 1024x768. Many laptops don't even go near the 1600x1200 resolution yet.

So saying that 1024x768 is a dying breed is sheer nonsense. For MT to be accessible to visitors of all sorts, the minimum wallpaper size should absolutely not be 1600x1200 as I bet more than 50% of the wallers don't even use that resolution themselves. Besides many wallers just present their creativity for other people to use out of kindness and hopes to improve themselves. Demanding them to create something a certain resolution just to be apart of a community is pretty far-fetched.

I can sort of see why you'd want to suggest this, I mean, people who use lower resolutions (1024x768) could always download the 1600x1200 and set their desktop to stretch instead of center or tile. there might be some compression effects depending on how the pixels are compressed, but it's usually less of an issue than stretching.

However, I don't think we should set 1600x1200 as a minimum size, because in a lot of cases, the scan/stock image that we start with aren't big enough to work with that resolution. Also, not everyone has infinate memory, so a 1600x1200 file with 50+ layers lots of colours and lots of filter effects can get very very large... It's fine if you're using vectors (that's a whole different story), but for everyone else, setting the minimum at such a high res can turn a lot of people away from making wallpapers...

Also, what about those of us who don't use 4:3 ratio? What would be the minimum res for widescreens? would that mean 1280x720 and 1280x768 would be unacceptable then?

Simple: No.

A lot of 17" LCD's use 1280x1024 as their native resolution. Only CRT's use 1600x1200 - correct me if I'm wrong.

If walls are minimum 1600x1200, it'll be ugly on my 17" LCD.

allow me to address all the responses at once.
yes, there many people still whom own 15 inch monitors still have a default resolution of 1024x768. i personally own a 19 inch monitor at a default 1280x1024 resolution which i may add is an aspect ratio of 5:4 versus a resolution of 4:3 for 1600x1200. so in essence i compromise 99.4% of the time.

I have absolutely no problems re-sizing a 1600 x 1200 wall in Firefox. the wall looks fine.

1600x1200 allows people whom have monitor resolutions of 1024 x768, 1280x960 and of course 1600 x 1200 to use the wall on their desktop. as well as 1280x1024 as i can attest. the mission or purpose of this site [as i understand it - but i have been wrong before] is to provide high-quality walls that members can display on their computers, foster creativity, and perhaps introduce new artists and styles etc..

as MapleRose mentioned re: what about wide-screen owners? well, i have never seen a
1280x720 wall that i can re-call. you can always resize a larger wide-screen wall such as 1920x1200 which artists like tama-neko routinely submit. is it really necessary to have
1280x720 and 1280x768 resolutions as well? if i owned say a small widescreen monitor at 1400x900 i would wall at 1920x1200.or 1920x1080. why? because more widescreen owners would be able to use the wall if they wanted to.

candy-chan- the native resolution of a 13 inch, 15 inch and 17 inch Macbook Pro are 1280x800, 1440x900 and 1680x1050 respectively. why would an owner use 1024x768 or 640x480 etc? using a 4:3 resolution on a wide-screen monitor makes absolutely no sense. perhaps we should add 640x480 to the list of accepted resolutions.
actually it doesn't suprise me that most visitors to your site have 1024x768 resolutions. why? because most of your walls are at 1600x1200 resolution. i assume you own a wide-screen monitor but still you kindly choose to wall at 1600x1200.

as far as quality and file sizes- i am currently working on a wall that is 56mb with dimensions of 2110x2777. which i will either convert into a 2048x1536 or 1600x1200. i could simply make a 1280x1024 wall but i don't. i am clearly not adverse to large sized scans and projects. hell, you can't even use Photoshop without the proper computer resources.

re: low quality scans- i understand that the moderators have purged low quaility scans.
personally i usually submit raw large 2000 x ---- scans.

larger is better when it comes to digital art. simple as that.

mcg- 20 inch lcd's have 1600x1200 default resolution.

Quote by DREAMcandy-chan- the native resolution of a 15 inch and 17 inch Macbook Pro are 1440x900 and 1680x1050 respectively. why would an owner use 1024x768 or 640x480 etc? using a 4:3 resolution on a wide-screen monitor makes absolutely no sense. perhaps we should add 640x480 to the list of accepted resolutions.

Quote by candy-chanconsidering all of the Apple laptops using this resolution. Everywhere I go around me people use ibooks.

May I add that not everyone buys a computer every 2 years or so~ Recent products are rarely the majority

Plus. you want to get rid of 1024x768 but add 640x480?

EDIT

Quote by DREAMi assume you own a wide-screen monitor but still you kindly choose to wall at 1600x1200.

I use 1024x768

I object. I'm still using a desk-size of 1280x1024 and making walls in that size. And that's not going to change. Sides, 1024x768 is still good to the ones who have problem reading on the monitor. Enforcing this iron rule will only cause more schism around here.

And my PC is 3 years old now. Over and out.

Every office I've worked in has been a 1024x768 resolution... you'd be depriving me of the only artistic display in the work-place if you banned 1024x768.

I understand where you're coming from, but I just don't agree. There's still a vast amount of people on 1024x768.

i only make 1600x1200, but my first resolutions were 1024x768, maybe on my job screen they look very tiny, (thats why i only make 1600x1200 now), but in my home i have a 1280x1024 res. monitor, I have no objection of making walls with any resolution, I just see that many people is still using 1024x768, so they need still need that resolution ^^.