I’ve searched the forum and multiple threads have all pointed to differing opinions with a slight skew towards one definitive resolution that seems to scale best when publishing on Facer. These measurements seem to be:
1280x1280 @ 72ppi – where most people seem to be getting the best results and least amount of line ‘jaggedness’.
Can anyone attest to using other scales/resolutions and getting a better result?
@Facer_Official – why did your devs say 640x640 is ideal (in reply to a forum post), yet, 1280x1280 clearly yields better results when exporting pngs/jpgs to Facer and publishing?
I guess I’m really just looking to maximize quality and minimize the aliasing issues that seem present when using thin lines and single pixel manipulation upon publishing.
Did you ever looked ad the average resolution of an smart watch display ?
What is the point to downscale a picture from 1280x1280 ? a good picture with a decent ppi that has max the double resolution off the display can be moved a little and will always fit, when to small you often have to stretch it and that give a terrible result.
Using huge pictures to scale down only make the browser mess up, it already use all the memory it can get and it will slow down bigtime… and most of all a good quality picture will not be better if you make it huge and scale down… an bad picture might seem to look better when you scale it down… but starting with a bad original in never a smart idea.
I always try to work with the original resolution off the display, that works (for me) the best and the items always fit without scaling. I use simply a template in PS so it’s easy to see if the measurements are right…
Using higher res images and scaling down will provide less aliasing and almost a natural anti-aliasing, not only that, it’s a multiple of 320x which is Facer’s default as mentioned by many others, so, 1280, as I said, seems to be the forum consensus.
And we’re not talking image quality of photos, considering anyone designing should understand if your photo isn’t the size of the canvas, it will pixelate unless it’s vector art, so I’m not sure what your point is…
Using huge pictures to scale down only make the browser mess up, it already use all the memory it can get and it will slow down bigtime…
Now your’re just spreading misinformation with no relevant sources and saying things that aren’t related or completely false – did you read the title? anything you export from your design software will be slightly compressed and no bigger than multiple layers on Facer, your browser will handle it just fine.
I always try to work with the original resolution off the display, that works (for me) the best and the items always fit without scaling. I use simply a template in PS so it’s easy to see if the measurements are right…
You clearly haven’t read the forums and heard the issues with aliasing and the fact that Facer is 320x320 as are some watches, but also 400x400 and users are having different results from the exact same export, so, clearly you are providing anecdotal evidence arguing against support for a larger resolution when most of what you said is false, so, I will not heed your advice and wait for a Dev, Admin or Premium Designer to chime in with their real world results after having looked at the macro, not individual case study.
The fact that you need this kind of advice tells a lot about your skill level, So being smart, calling other people Troll and feeling but-hurt about almost anything make me believe you are more an Troll then some others… I did read things and build my first website when Compuserve was a big thing… I use Photoshop from version 6 and rather base on experience then a textbook. Sure you say things that make sense but you also ignore facts without even have tried them out yourself… Beside, you ask an question that you can answer in 30 min just by practicing… but sure, it’s more easy to ask others seems a thing on the inter web nobody seems to use his or her brain and let others find the solution or answer.
It’s impossible to make a perfect face for every device, as you already figured out yourself they don’t have the same resolution… I don’t care myself about that as long I only want them to look good on my devices If you want them look good on every device your have to use something else, not Facer… That is not being negative but a fact.
Please Facer forums have always been one of the best, friendliest communities out there. We like to encourage new people to join the community, but they may hesitate if they see people arguing or antagonising. We’re all friends here, we’re all striving to be the best we can be. Keep it positive
I went from 960 to 640 last year and saved templates, grids, and other tools for 640. Now my most recent draft is 960 after reading this discussion. I’m still confused. Did we ever get an official word from Facer?
As to the troll comments, roycaruso is correct. New members ask for help. We enjoy helping others, but people will not want to join here or offer help if they end up being attacked. My colleagues were surprised at the rude, disrespectful comments directed at me a week or so ago. Let’s hope the unpleasant tone changes soon or the community will acquire a not-so-good reputation.
When People start name-calling i’m done with being nice… I might not be an ass licker or not even a nice guy, but I have over 35 people working for me and they get their money every month so at least I know how things work in the world…
I did try to make a point that when you work in the native resolution there is no scaling and that is always a good thing… And for the rest simple math will do so why do you need a official Facer replay it’s not that hard to see what the site as output generate…
Trolls are from origin fron Norway and not even really bad… but people got scarred of them… and yes some are ugly and some have funny colored hair… well i’m looking awesome and have no hair so i’m not sure if I qualified as Troll… I’m also not from Norway… i’m living in Holland but i’m not really Dutch…
I did work a lot with the problem about scaling when I did some stuff for Justin tv… (now called Twitch) the Adobe encoder was always a hard to get problem as long for streaming you also had to work around the difference in input resolution and what came out on the user side… always was same in as out the best… but true, dividing in whole numbers also was looking good… but never the same as native…
I’m not a nice person, I did give that up when I found out nice persons work for someone, less nice people are the one’s that pay you salary…
Well, it‘s all about antializing when downsizing Bitmap graphics. The better the basic objects/pictures are the better are the achieved results in most of all cases. 2048x2048 is to big to handle and consumes a lot of memory when you work with Photoshop. The output differences in comparison to 1024x1024 are small.
In some cases a little sharpen of a downsized object could be helpful.
But there is another reason to use a higher resolution in the construction process: When you rotate/scale/ distort an object (which is normally already antialised) in photoshop you will automatically get more antialising (smoothing) effects. They multiply when the whole picture is downsized.
I am working with autocad with an output of 1028x1028. The rendered object are already antialised. Often i first have to sharpen them to get a better/sharper look at the final result.
And, in future the watch face resolution will grow, may be to 640x640… then you will need better base material.
Hope, this helps for a better understanding.
Here are some testfiles. The differences are not that big but visible…
I generally use 960x960. I tend to get less jaggies, but sometimes I still need to go back and adjust things for hard white lines. Regardless of how it looks in the creator, everyone should always test on your watch face anyway. Putting things on a real face gives you the best view of what it is in real life.
“Three Billy Goats Gruff” depicted trolls as ugly and nasty. Apparently that trait stayed with them over the years. Three Billy Goats Gruff - Wikipedia
@mack.w.benz & @roycaruso,
I should restate that. If I’m starting from scratch AND I can find artwork that’s large enough then I’ll start at 960x960. To speed things up, I tend to purchase stock photography or vector art from 123rf.com (metallic backgrounds, strange textures, stuff like that). Of course, smaller dimension art is cheaper than larger so if something is really plain I’ll buy lower sizes. If an image is very intricate then I try to not alter it’s size. I’ve cut square slices from things that are 945 x 563 and be stuck working in 563 x 563. I try NEVER to scale up but I’ve done it sometimes. If the scale-up is very slight (less than 5%) then I’ve not had any trouble. Many forget that you’re looking at a display that’s like 40mm or less. Super-intricate detail is lost in the tiny display.
Facer forums have always been one of the best, friendliest communities out there. We like to encourage new people to join the community, but they may hesitate if they see people arguing or antagonising. We’re all friends here, we’re all striving to be the best we can be. Keep it positive 
