Computing desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 6

Question about computer monitor screen resolutions

I have a question about computer monitor screen resolutions. I don’t understand too much of the “technical” computer information, nor do I need/want to. I read the articles on display resolution and computer display standard. And I “get” that the numbers essentially refer to the height and width of the computer screen monitor (in pixels).

Here is my situation. I have a desktop computer. The screen resolution is 2560 x 1440. I have a laptop computer. The screen resolution is 1366 x 768. Sometimes, I go on websites to find different desktop backgrounds / wallpapers to download onto my computers. They are pictures and they usually come in many different resolutions.

If I do not find an “exact match” to my own specific computer resolutions, I assume that I can still download the picture. But, it won’t appear quite “right”. It will be of inferior quality. It will probably appear fuzzy or grainy or somehow undesirable. In other words, it will not be a nice, clean, crisp, high-quality appearance in picture.

So, my question: If I do not find an “exact match” to my own specific computer resolutions, should I not download pictures of different resolutions (due to the problem I just referred to, above)? Or are there some screen resolutions that are “good enough” and/or “close enough” to mine that the difference in appearance will be unnoticeable?

If so, what other resolutions can I use for my desktop computer (that has a screen resolution of 2560 x 1440)? And, what other resolutions can I use for my laptop computer (that has a screen resolution of 1366 x 768)?

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the difference in size ain't too big you'd hardly notice. By the way, why not just download it and see for yourself? You can always download a wallpaper with a bigger resolution which will be downsized and that usually doesn't affect the picture-quality, so... Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have tried. And the picture does not look "right". As I said above, the appearance is not nice, clean, crisp, high-quality. The problem is that there are many, many, many different resolutions (usually). So, with me not truly even understanding "resolution", I don't know where to begin. And I don't want to spend all day, downloading dozens of different resolutions in a "trial and error". I use this website a lot: [1]. You can see how many different resolutions (variations) each picture comes in. Select any random picture / background / wallpaper. Click it. Then, you will see "Choose Your Resolution" options. Each picture usually comes in about 40 or 50 different variations of resolution sizes. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to go through "trial and error" only once. After you found a resolution that works, you know which one to choose next time! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not true at all. Each individual picture comes in its own variety of resolutions. Every picture is different than every other picture (in their availability in various resolutions). So, it would be, for me, a non-stop "trial and error". For any picture that I like and want, I'd have to "trial and error" whichever resolutions are available for that picture. (Which may or may not match the resolutions I tried for a previous picture.) So, it would be a non-stop process of "trial and error" for each individual photo. If I found one resolution that I like, then I would simply use the resolution that I definitively know (i.e., 2560 x 1440 for my desktop and 1366 x 768 for my laptop). But, other pictures come in other resolutions. So, finding one "good" resolution does not solve my problem. It would only solve my problem for that one instance. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this question would depend on the year you ask it. A few years ago, when flat displays (including laptops) first became popular, their resolutions were low and so this effect was much more notable. Nowadays a typical display has a couple of thousand pixels in each direction and so it's still detectable, but more subtle.

When displays began as monochrome CRT tubes they were analogue. Any horizontal resolution, up to the maximum frequency limit, was displayed, no matter how many pixels. The vertical resolution though was quantised by the number of display lines.

Colour screens were a little more complex as they used a dot mask and that had the effect of having pixels (although smaller than most pixels at that time). When large screens were used for precision work such as CAD, with fine detail, there was a period when monochrome screens were still favoured because they didn't have this coarseness of the dot mask. The Sony Trinitron was also popular because, although still a shadow mask, it wasn't so visible.

With flat panels though, displays became digital and with individual pixels. The early large display ones around 2000 were large, but low numbers of pixels. When these show a higher res image then then need to use some sort of dither algorithm, which if done poorly can give a visible halftone or Moiré effect. You may well find that it looks better if you resize your image first to the best display size (using a photo editor like IrfanView) and then load that image into the wallpaper without needing to scale it. Although it's much less of an effect these days, it used to be that an image editor was just better at applying dither algorithms than a simple wallpaper loader was. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I don't understand your posting. I am asking this question in the year 2019. No? I am not interested in how this problem would have been solved "x" years ago ... or "x" years into the future. I am interested to solve this problem now. Or, maybe I did not understand your post? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in ...

Then don't expect others to be interested in answering you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Sorry, but ... Your post makes no sense. Why would I be interested to an answer (to my question) that would take place "x" years in the past ... or "x" years in the future? I believe it to be implicit that I am asking for, and expect, an answer that is germane to 2019. If I have problems with my computer in, say, the year 2057, I will worry about it then. Not now. Why would I post that today? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry. Just being honest. Are you saying that other editors "are not interested in" answers that are germane to 2019? Really? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to download either the highest resolution they have or a resolution that is an exact multiple of your screen size -- if it is important try both and see which looks better -- then use image resizing software to make an image that is the exact size of your screen. See [ https://www.google.com/search?q=image+resizing+software ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, the problem is not the size of the original picture. The problem is the resolution of the original picture. So, typically -- no matter what the original picture has for a resolution -- when I download it, it will always "fill up" my entire monitor. There is no "blank" space left (on the top, bottom, left, or right) of my screen. The entire screen is filled with the new, downloaded picture. That is, the sizes (of the screen and of the downloaded image) correspond perfectly. But, the picture will be low-quality, grainy, not sharp, hazy, etc. Due to resolution. Not due to size. (I believe.) Also: You suggest using the highest resolution available. But, it may be that the highest resolution available is lower than my computer's resolution. So, I don't believe that that addresses the problem. Or does it? Perhaps I can take a picture that has a higher resolution than my computer ... and "down size" it, or whatever. But, I don't think that would work in reverse? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. the the sizes of the screen and of the downloaded image do not correspond perfectly. Your computer is scaling the image (and you can tell it to tile or center the image without scaling if that's what you want.) Image resizing software typically does a better job of scaling -- it looks better. And yes, my advice only works if the image is larger than your screen. If it is smaller and gets scaled up (by your computer on the fly or by image resizing software) it will lack detail. You can't get something from nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that "size" is typically given in pixels (or MB, but that is irrelevant here). "Resolution" is used in many different ways, but nowadays typically refers to the number of pixels per size unit (e.g. 326 pixels per inch for some of Apple's Retina displays). You ideally want an image that has as many pixels as your screen, or the same size. I don't know what software you use, but on both Macs and Linux machines, the default method to install background images has been good enough at scaling that I never saw artefacts if the original image was of good enough quality. You have a different problem if the ratio of width and height of the image are different from your screen's - in that case, rescaling will make everybody on the screen more skinny (or fat) than in the original image. To avoid this, you can crop the image to the same ratio as your screen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, MacOS recently removed tile from the list of options for background images! So I replaced the tiling abstract images I had made at 1024×1024. —Tamfang (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed archiving by Legacypac (talk · contribs). This is not a Wikipedia article, it is a Reference desk. This is not encyclopedic content. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]