Yes pls. It won't hurt except... BMPs and hi-Q JPGs (or compressed PNGs) with many colors (especially noises).
forum
[resolved] Allowing HD backgrounds for beatmaps (1920x1080)
posted
Total Posts
36
I agree!
1920x1080 isn't enough nowadays. In fact, HD skins are made for 2560x1440 and above, from their size.happy30 wrote:
Actually, I don't know how many of you actually play fullscreen 1920*1080, so I could use your support on this one.
Certain people here are Ultra HD 4K so why not go for three higher resolutions, as following?
- 1920x1080 ~Full HD~
- 2560x1440 ~Quad HD~
- 3840x2160 ~Ultra HD 4K~
- Smaller than FHD: 1366x768
- Exactly FHD: 1366x768 and 1920x1080
- Between FHD and QHD: 1366x768 and 1920x1080
- Exactly QHD: 1366x768, 1920x1080 and 2560x1440
- Between QHD and UHD4K: 1366x768, 1920x1080 and 2560x1440
- Exactly UHD4K: 1366x768, 1920x1080, 2560x1440 and 3840x2160
- Beyond: 1366x768, 1920x1080, 2560x1440 and 3840x2160
Yes yes i agree, take mu star >.>
Topic Starter
I personally think x1080 would be fine for the time being, since I don't think there are too many 4k HD users and also not that many 4k BGs to use for maps. It would just take up space.
2K and 4K are now still an expensive stuffs, so as happy30 said i don't believe much ppl getting it in their hand
so 1080p is enough for now i guess
so 1080p is enough for now i guess
1080p might be fine for the time being, but is there any harm in allowing 4K jpgs. Admittedly, 4k pics are hard to find, but I see no problem in having them.
Also with the new Dell and Mac 5k displays, and the 8k displays around the corner, there is a question of how much future proofing to do.
Also with the new Dell and Mac 5k displays, and the 8k displays around the corner, there is a question of how much future proofing to do.
No comment--this is truuuuuuue--Ultra HD 8K: Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320) is approaching and once it's mainstream (outside Japan) we'll have to think againblissfulyoshi wrote:
Also with the new Dell and Mac 5k displays, and the 8k displays around the corner, there is a question of how much future proofing to do.
Also regarding the comments on Ultra HD 4K: HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.2, not to mention the 4K screens, aren't yet common so I sorta agree, however 4K is only a matter of time. We only need peppy's response.
Also I forgot a point in my comment up there: The resolution osu! will use to display the beatmap's background depends on osu!'s resolution. In other words, if your screen is Full HD, the FHD background will be displayed instead of the HD-ready (1366x768), QHD or UHD4K. If you're QHD, the QHD one will be displayed. You probably get the rest now. Hoping this will satisfy those above Full HD.
Support, but 4K is just pushing it lol
But do you really gonna find any 4K manga style images (considering they most popular background type in osu) for any map? upscaleing images is not really worth it as GPU gonna do the same with 1080p image to 4K monitor anyway
Also 4K image should not do any harm, osu is graphically lite, at most you will get routh edges on background due to downscaleing
Also 4K image should not do any harm, osu is graphically lite, at most you will get routh edges on background due to downscaleing
true, but 4k, 5k and 8k are still cutting edge (4k less so, but it still hasn't been widely adopted). 1080p has been a very prevalent standard for a while now with most media, yet osu still lacks full support for that (in terms of native background resolution). Adopting 4k+ this early would be a paradigm shift of sorts (not to say that that's a bad thing).blissfulyoshi wrote:
with the new Dell and Mac 5k displays, and the 8k displays around the corner, there is a question of how much future proofing to do.
I know saying "support" is useless since ppy ignores those but still, I don't have a star. Although I'm not using *1080 resolution and this pc can't even handle that I would like to see HD images allowed. I wonder about the sizes though since with this only the image can be 1+ MB.
yes please. would be nice.
cmon let's do this!
I still love how I changed this from "allow 1080p" to "allow 4K" xD
It's a matter of time...probably...xxdeathx wrote:
cmon let's do this!
4k would require a lot of space tho...
Gumpyyy wrote:
4k would require a lot of space tho...
No, certain 8K wallpapers do. 8K upscales are over 10 MB here, but I have downscaled an original wallpaper beyond 8K, and look:
For some reason it's only 5 MB. So there's no harm in allowing 4K BGs...
Warning thoblissfulyoshi wrote:
1080p might be fine for the time being, but is there any harm in allowing 4K jpgs. Admittedly, 4k pics are hard to find, but I see no problem in having them.
I tried Ultra HD 8K: Super Hi-Vision in my skin and...after closing the game, reopening it caused a fatal problem: None of the mouse, tablet and keyboard were usable...except the Start button
*tries UHD4K* Wait for peppy.
Imagine 5mb for every song that would increase space requirement on you hardrive significantly.
^ for me this would be at least an additional 50gb of space T^TGumpyyy wrote:
Imagine 5mb for every song that would increase space requirement on you hardrive significantly.
other than that I'm completely in support
~ It would be great to have this feature, it's just a shame about the space......especially on small laptops like my own.Actually, 1080p image can be under 2mb and still be in a good quality. Well, I don't want to use it as a wallpaper but as a background on a map it is acceptable.
2160p support would be really nice since the price has really decreased over the years.
The 2160p resolution may be on mobile devices within the next 2 years, if not 1.
The 2160p resolution may be on mobile devices within the next 2 years, if not 1.
I don't see any reason why 1080p shouldn't be allowed, it won't take that much place at all. I took a random picture for a comparison and saved it in multiple ways.
http://puu.sh/jlgTR/eb346fe7f7.png (5.69 MB, PNG 2560x1440) - Original, forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgAI/066cb99a07.jpg (1.28 MB, JPG 90% quality, 2560x1440) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgTe/71b3126984.jpg (2.08 MB, JPG 100% quality, 2560x1440) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgoM/80f186fb3f.png (2.65 MB, PNG 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlglR/a02b66d1b1.jpg (778 kB, JPG 90% quality, 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgKQ/e47e4eb700.jpg (1.12 MB, JPG 100% quality, 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlh20/4e17ff554f.png (1.34 MB, PNG 1366x768) - Allowed to use, frequently used
http://puu.sh/jlgtg/9be5d7bdb9.jpg (454 kB, JPG 90% quality, 1366x768) - Allowed to use
http://puu.sh/jlgQf/ec408c7a73.jpg (648 kB, JPG 100% quality, 1366x768) - Allowed to use, frequently used
What's problem here is that beatmaps are getting ranked with PNGs and 100% quality JPGs and are pretty frequently used. However nobody is considering that 90% quality doesn't make any difference for human's eye, compare those 90% images to PNGs and 100% images, I doubt you can notice a big difference, if any. People use these pngs in storyboards and even for regular backgrounds, but if it doesn't matter why would 90% JPG with 2560x1440 resolution matter and why does actually 90% JPG with 1920x1080 quality matter when it does have lower size than 1366x768 PNG and almost equal size to 100% JPG with 1366x768 resolution. I think if people care about the fact that we can use a bit lower quality, receive lower file size but still not notice anything, it shouldn't be problem at all.
http://puu.sh/jlgTR/eb346fe7f7.png (5.69 MB, PNG 2560x1440) - Original, forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgAI/066cb99a07.jpg (1.28 MB, JPG 90% quality, 2560x1440) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgTe/71b3126984.jpg (2.08 MB, JPG 100% quality, 2560x1440) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgoM/80f186fb3f.png (2.65 MB, PNG 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlglR/a02b66d1b1.jpg (778 kB, JPG 90% quality, 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlgKQ/e47e4eb700.jpg (1.12 MB, JPG 100% quality, 1920x1080) - Forbidden to use
http://puu.sh/jlh20/4e17ff554f.png (1.34 MB, PNG 1366x768) - Allowed to use, frequently used
http://puu.sh/jlgtg/9be5d7bdb9.jpg (454 kB, JPG 90% quality, 1366x768) - Allowed to use
http://puu.sh/jlgQf/ec408c7a73.jpg (648 kB, JPG 100% quality, 1366x768) - Allowed to use, frequently used
What's problem here is that beatmaps are getting ranked with PNGs and 100% quality JPGs and are pretty frequently used. However nobody is considering that 90% quality doesn't make any difference for human's eye, compare those 90% images to PNGs and 100% images, I doubt you can notice a big difference, if any. People use these pngs in storyboards and even for regular backgrounds, but if it doesn't matter why would 90% JPG with 2560x1440 resolution matter and why does actually 90% JPG with 1920x1080 quality matter when it does have lower size than 1366x768 PNG and almost equal size to 100% JPG with 1366x768 resolution. I think if people care about the fact that we can use a bit lower quality, receive lower file size but still not notice anything, it shouldn't be problem at all.