Crisp Design ? best native resolution?

I like the idea of “Crisp Design” but having a template with a 640x640 resolution may not be as crisp as expected once reduced to 400x400. ( = multiplied by 0.625) when watch resolution is 400x400)

Don’t you thing that designing straight in the final resolution (or 800x800 or 1200 x 1200) would be better ?

The advance settings resize the pictures to 320x320… is that because the watches can’t do it themselve ?
I’m a bit confused i must say… If the watch has a 400x400 resolution and your original design is 640x640, what happends ?
1-> reduced to 320 x 320 by facer
2-> enlarged to 400 x 400 by the watch ?


1 Like

Great question @roland. Been wondering this as well. Just haven’t gotten around to looking into it. Hopefully some of the others will chime in. I think @GAUSS might know the answer to this.

Well, i can´t answer that question as well, i simply don´t know … This is something for @Facer_Official or @Facer-Staff.

Greetings, GAUSS.

1 Like

I switch between 960x960 and 640x640 since the creator resizes everything to 320x320 automatically.

I understand, but i still don’t know what happens when uploaded to the watch…

When you say “the creator resizes everything to 320x320” do you think the original size is “lost” ? I hope it’s only a matrix transformation for display… I’ll try with a 400x400 picture with a single pixel vertical white line… I’ll see if it “less” that a pixel in the editor (less means semi transparent, a bit blur) and if it seems crips again uploaded to a watch (i don’t have a watch yet ! so I can’t really test and understand what happens…)

1 Like

I don’t think the original size is lost but I don’t know for sure. I normally design in 640 but the one time I tried 960 my face started lagging when getting near 100 layers which did not happen with any of my 640 faces. I’m not 100% sure if it was because all the original files were bigger or if it was just the specifics of that face but either way I tend to steer clear of the 960 since then.

We’ve had a few discussions about this over the years. I guess the best one can do is to read the related conversations in this community and come to a conclusion based on everyone’s suggestions. Most of mine are done at 960x960, although I’ve done a few at 1280x1280 as well. :neutral_face:

I guess overall, I just wish watch manufacturers would have higher resolution faces in general. Even at 400x400 things get a little blurry. A while back we had a thread discussing watch features where I did some rough calculations based on watch face screen size. My wish was for something in the 500x500 - 800x800 PPI range. That would increase the crispness of designs overall. From there Facer would need to modify there systems to take advantage of that. I’m still unsure how the scaling works on all the various watch brands and screen sizes.

I’m really new to the Facer design software, and looking at these posts I have to ask a question. When creating a graphic for your watch, and the native resolution is 320x320, can you set your graphics software so that it will save your 320x320 graphic at 300dpi instead of the standard 72dpi? Would that not give you a crisper, sharper picture?

If I’m not mistaken 72dpi is a requirement for Facer creator. I’m currently building a face with 640 and it started to lag on my s3 frontier at around 100 layers. Seems like it’s running fine on my Ticwatch s however. I guess I’m not really sure if it’s the original file size or not. Facer engineers are looking into the face to see if they can see what’s causing it to lag. If they find something regarding file size or something I’ll let you guys know.

1 Like