Post A4PAPg0O6Tkc4QDVDc by xiaod1@baraag.net
 (DIR) More posts by xiaod1@baraag.net
 (DIR) Post #A4PA7dWyZ3vbBRrE9o by Konani@baraag.net
       2021-02-18T17:13:03Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @PowerOfSin i'm like; whatever size brings out the details, while also not being so huge you can't see what's going on
       
 (DIR) Post #A4PAPg0O6Tkc4QDVDc by xiaod1@baraag.net
       2021-02-18T17:16:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @PowerOfSin The only reason I won't choose the top option is that I've seen some very clear images that were maybe double the size of a thumbnail and that really wasn't enjoyable. At the same time I've seen some ridiculously high resolution images that were hard to appreciate if you looked at it any way other than 'fit to screen'.
       
 (DIR) Post #A4PPbreu6IKZ05RBuC by forthwith@baraag.net
       2021-02-18T20:06:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @PowerOfSin There's a limit, related to the display resolutions of the audience. If something gets drawn at 10k x 20k, that's gonna be downscaled something fierce, and any detail relying on that res is lost. By all means, use high res as a tool to smooth the lines, but feature size needs to be relatively large to survive scaling down to screens with 2160 vertical lines or fewer.Uploading the mega-res version is absurd, imo.
       
 (DIR) Post #A4PQUhXhPimvYKDRiK by forthwith@baraag.net
       2021-02-18T20:16:30Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @PowerOfSin It's great for _drawing_! It's just useless or worse for _viewing_!