I've been asking around about commissions on e621 and Twitter, and when I mention the dimensions of the image that I want (7680x3840) a good 65% of them have been like "huh? What does that mean?".

Resolution is the dimensions of a digital image in pixels. The higher the resolution, the more detail one can put into an image.

For example, after I explained it to NapalmExpress he was all like "hur durr I don't think my computer can handle that." My potato laptop from 2009 can handle 4K image editing just fine, so I don't see what the issue is.

Is this even more common than I thought? Do people just not bother to learn how the digital art they create is affected?

R0GU3T1G3R said:
I've been asking around about commissions on e621 and Twitter, and when I mention the dimensions of the image that I want (7680x3840) a good 65% of them have been like "huh? What does that mean?".

Resolution is the dimensions of a digital image in pixels. The higher the resolution, the more detail one can put into an image.

For example, after I explained it to NapalmExpress he was all like "hur durr I don't think my computer can handle that." My potato laptop from 2009 can handle 4K image editing just fine, so I don't see what the issue is.

Is this even more common than I thought? Do people just not bother to learn how the digital art they create is affected?

Considering the condescending way you just put this, I'm more inclined to believe your initial request was poorly worded and hard to understand. The larger resolution an image is, the more time it takes to get the same quality as a smaller resolution image, Drawing an image that is 7680x3840 takes up a lot more processing speed than simply viewing, or editing an image that has already been finished, on top of viewing scale and the type of file the artist goes with. The type of equipment they create the art on, and their familiarity with drawing something at that scale it can be quite a daunting task. So maybe don't automatically assume artists fools for questioning what you're asking. And don't mock them in a public forum.

R0GU3T1G3R said:
For example, after I explained it to NapalmExpress he was all like "hur durr I don't think my computer can handle that." My potato laptop from 2009 can handle 4K image editing just fine, so I don't see what the issue is.

Image editing is not the same as opening and manipulating a 1.2gb PSD file at that resolution with easily 50-80 layers. Depending on the required complexity you wouldn't be able to adequately work on a project like that with less than 8gb RAM minimum, something that is not yet 100% common in consumer grade / office work type computers.

There's also the problem that that resolution is basically "wasted" if the image is not intended for print. Most artists in the furry fandom either don't have a 4k display that would be able to display an image like that in its entirety, nor do they regularly print their works. Why work at 4k if the image is intended as a 1080p wallpaper only? You're only wasting work and time on details that will be removed once it's being shrunk down to fit the display.

Editing an image for a minute isn't really the same as dealing with a canvas that large for several days and having multiple layers. They're right to say that their computers probably can't handle that; even my computer kinda balks at making something 3300x4400 after I get past 10 or so layers, and there's usually a lot more than that in an image. Further-- just because you can put more detail in larger canvases doesn't mean the art will be more detailed. I've seen plenty of massive canvases with less detail than my own work despite the disparity in resolution. Resolution is therefore not inherently the deciding factor of quality.

haha buddy, even my rather formidable gaming computer will choke on 4000x4000 drawings if it has even little too many layers. editing flat images require a lot less processing power than multi layer images.

NotMeNotYou said:
Why work at 4k if the image is intended as a 1080p wallpaper only?

Future proofing. Why put ourselves up to what we have to currently with art from the 90's / early 2000's if we can have a decent resolution now that will become closer to 'normal' whenever that future comes?
While there is art that doesn't really benefit from the increase in resolution in terms of fine detail, trying to view that art on a 4k+ monitor isn't a fun time given you can't scale up raster art at all and are stuck contending with whatever that resolution is blown up to, blocky pixels and all. If we only dealt with vector images this wouldn't be a problem, but that wouldn't be that practical. Plus while most don't intend to print the art, the option is nice.

Ruikuli said:
haha buddy, even my rather formidable gaming computer will choke on 4000x4000 drawings if it has even little too many layers. editing flat images require a lot less processing power than multi layer images.

My desktop has no problems with 16k mutilayer textures (mostly for game modding) even with several virtual machines and several instances of Blender running, but then again I have an overclocked Xeon, an assload of RAM, and SLI GTX 1070s.

For reference the potato laptop I mentioned is a Fujitsu Lifebook T5010 with 4GB of DDR3 and a Core 2 T2100. It runs GIMP just fine, I can draw quite well on its touch display.

Photoshop is also complete trash performancewise, which is why I use GIMP.

Versperus said:
Considering the condescending way you just put this,

Not intended to be condescending, sorry.

Versperus said:
The larger resolution an image is, the more time it takes to get the same quality as a smaller resolution image, Drawing an image that is 7680x3840 takes up a lot more processing speed than simply viewing, or editing an image that has already been finished, on top of viewing scale and the type of file the artist goes with.

I understand this, I make mods for Skyrim, Fallout 4, et cetera.

Versperus said: So maybe don't automatically assume artists fools for questioning what you're asking. And don't mock them in a public forum.

Not mocking anyone, it's just an example.

Anonomn said:
Future proofing. Why put ourselves up to what we have to currently with art from the 90's / early 2000's if we can have a decent resolution now that will become closer to 'normal' whenever that future comes?
While there is art that doesn't really benefit from the increase in resolution in terms of fine detail, trying to view that art on a 4k+ monitor isn't a fun time given you can't scale up raster art at all and are stuck contending with whatever that resolution is blown up to, blocky pixels and all. If we only dealt with vector images this wouldn't be a problem, but that wouldn't be that practical. Plus while most don't intend to print the art, the option is nice.

If you spend all your time on future proofing you will never get anywhere. :v

That's only if you're actively going out of your way to do something completely removed from what you'd do normally.
There's a difference between bumping the resolution 3-4x the average monitor resolution and shoving three 2080ti's into a rig so you won't have to buy another GPU for at leat a decade.

Anonomn said:
That's only if you're actively going out of your way to do something completely removed from what you'd do normally.
There's a difference between bumping the resolution 3-4x the average monitor resolution and shoving three 2080ti's into a rig so you won't have to buy another GPU for at leat a decade.

For a lot of people it would be deliberately going out of their way. Larger canvases are a bigger asspain to work on since, unlike paper, after zooming past the threshold of the screen you can't see what's past that threshold. You end up working in bits and pieces instead of working by the scope of the entire image, and even these days not everyone's computer may be up to that kind of task. My laptop is decent but will still really not like me working on 11x14" print-sized images, and the more layers you have the more pronounced that problem becomes. For people like me, who work at higher zoom, it's even worse. :p

I don't know many artists who work with that large of a canvas and quite frankly I find it unnecessary. I am just fine with something that fits my screen or is maybe up to double the size of my screen.

It's about that 2000x2000 canvas size

EDIT: Oh, he was ban evading.