What's the difference? just a lower quality/resolution? not even a different ratio?

It's a smaller version than the other, but still a wallpaper. As I said before, not everyone has the programs and knows how to rescale the images. 1920x1200 is a bit too much for a 1440x900 screens. If you put an image with a higher resolution than your desktop as your desktop background the quality will drop in a way or another(I mean it's like making it flater... the image that is).

I can accept making retouched images with differing aspect ratios, but...

People with 1440x900 screens, or any other 16:10 screen can use the original image and set it to stretch (it will cause no distortion, as the ratio is the same). Your OS would have to be pretty obscure/old not to have a "stretch" choice.

Mikuro said:
Your OS would have to be pretty obscure/old not to have a "stretch" choice.

.. until win7 I don't recall Windows ever having stretch. Just center, fit, tile, fill.

I was not talking about the ratio. But the resolution you have it set on. I'll give you a fine example:
I use 1440x900 as my desk res... so here's the difference between using a perfect fit wallpaper and a larger version: 1440x900 vs. 1920x1200
What do you observe?

SciFi said:
.. until win7 I don't recall Windows ever having stretch. Just center, fit, tile, fill.

i'm pretty sure Fit = stretch back in XP

Actually, fit is different to stretch.

The difference is that instead of stretching both vertically and horizontally (ignoring ratio and leading to distortion if it doesn't match your screen), it instead stretches both dimentions equally until the last one hits the edge (cutting off any remainder). This leads to no distortion, but if it's too far off, you can loose part of the image off-screen.

If the ratio is the same, it acts the same as XP's stretch as both dimentions hit the edge of the screen at the same time (and so nothing is cut off).

As a comparison, if you use Media Player Classic, you can set the "Video frame" to "Touch window from outside", which is the same effect as fit.

Also, only Vista and up have fit, but stretch has been available since windows 95 (as part of the Plus! pack), the moar you know... :P

My Vista has no "Stretch".

Fit appears to have replaced stretch for Vista and up.

Enough! As I can see, this discussion has nothing to do with the image anymore. If you want to discuss about it, take it to the forum.

Yea, sorry.

It is an excellent picture in any case. :)

This picture original size is wxga plus 1440x900 and not 1080p.

Reading your comments make me feel completely out of the loop...(i_i)

Mikuro said:
Actually, fit is different to stretch.

The difference is that instead of stretching both vertically and horizontally (ignoring ratio and leading to distortion if it doesn't match your screen), it instead stretches both dimentions equally until the last one hits the edge (cutting off any remainder). This leads to no distortion, but if it's too far off, you can loose part of the image off-screen.

If the ratio is the same, it acts the same as XP's stretch as both dimentions hit the edge of the screen at the same time (and so nothing is cut off).

As a comparison, if you use Media Player Classic, you can set the "Video frame" to "Touch window from outside", which is the same effect as fit.

Also, only Vista and up have fit, but stretch has been available since windows 95 (as part of the Plus! pack), the moar you know... :P

Though I have not used 7 for more than 5 minutes, I applaud this move. Most of the wallpaper ration mess should be over in the future.

Tensa said:
I was not talking about the ratio. But the resolution you have it set on. I'll give you a fine example:
I use 1440x900 as my desk res... so here's the difference between using a perfect fit wallpaper and a larger version: 1440x900 vs. 1920x1200
What do you observe?

I observe a difference in scaling technique causing the OS-scaled version to be softer than the other, you don't seem to like this, and thats fine, just rescale the image yourself using your preferred technique.

I realise that is what was done here, I just think it's unnecessary to post multiple versions of images that differ only in resolutions with the same ratio.

I realise that is what was done here, I just think it's unnecessary to post multiple versions of images that differ only in resolutions with the same ratio.

I didn't do anything. The computer did it itself. Or didn't do anything and it's 1920x1200 on 1440x900. Anyway: Lanczos is way better than Biliniar (Bartlett) or Bicubic (Mitchell-Netravali).
Having more samples of the same image makes it easier for the visitors to find a perfect fit wallpaper that gives you the quality desired as your desktop background.

Enough talking on the subject, the image will not be deleted nor will other smaller versions of other images.