Patrik Gissberg <patrik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Weinhold: > > How about letting people submit a resolution suitable for web > > consumption plus > > an info at which maximum resolution the image is available, if the > > original > > content is pixel based? > It's easier to only submit one original, and let us create whatever > versions we need from it. Well, while that works for most wallpapers, there are some where that won't look as good as a specifically made version. > > For pixel content a minimum available resolution to enter the > > contest should > > probably be defined. > Again, requesting one original in a fixed size is easier than asking > for a minimum resolution. Otherwise, we risk that they will submit a > wallpaper with wrong aspect ratio that cannot be used, and therefor > must be disqualified. Same problem here: some wallpapers just won't look as good with different aspect ratios; having more options is always better than forcing a particular one. IOW while I think it's okay to have a certain requirement for the contest, it should still be mentioned that it is possible to submit images with different aspect ratios. Therefore, having a minimum resolution, and a range of aspect ratios will allow better works. Just to give you an example: if the submitted work is a photo, it would be quite stupid to adhere to a specific resolution, as well as aspect ratio. The image quality can only suffer from that. Similar problems with text (which often looks bad when resized), and layout in general, forcing an aspect ratio that we can't even use (because it matches no common monitor) doesn't make that much sense either. > Sean Collins: > > Promotes wonderbrush in a nice way. > Because very few people know how to use WonderBrush, I think we should > get very few contributions to the competition. Yes, that's definitely not something to pursue. Just mentioning it should be well enough. Bye, Axel.