2 added 8 characters in body
source | link

From a programming standpoint, images are optimally rendered when they are created and resized as multiples of 8. In your case, if you created your image 256x256 for example, you can scale it down to 168x168 and the image should retain its details proportionately for its new size.

That's most likely the reason why when it was 40x40 (5 * 8 x 5 * 8), it looked good. And the difference between 30 and 35 is that the 30x30 looked better than the 35x35, because 30 is closer to 32 (8 * 4).

From a programming standpoint, images are optimally rendered when they are created and resized as multiples of 8. In your case, if you created your image 256x256 for example, you can scale it down to 168x168 and the image should retain its details proportionately for its new size.

That's most likely the reason why when it was 40x40 (5 * 8 x 5 * 8), it looked good. And the difference between 30 and 35 is that the 30x30 looked better than the 35x35, because 30 is closer to 32.

From a programming standpoint, images are optimally rendered when they are created and resized as multiples of 8. In your case, if you created your image 256x256 for example, you can scale it down to 168x168 and the image should retain its details proportionately for its new size.

That's most likely the reason why when it was 40x40 (5 * 8 x 5 * 8), it looked good. And the difference between 30 and 35 is that the 30x30 looked better than the 35x35, because 30 is closer to 32 (8 * 4).

1
source | link

From a programming standpoint, images are optimally rendered when they are created and resized as multiples of 8. In your case, if you created your image 256x256 for example, you can scale it down to 168x168 and the image should retain its details proportionately for its new size.

That's most likely the reason why when it was 40x40 (5 * 8 x 5 * 8), it looked good. And the difference between 30 and 35 is that the 30x30 looked better than the 35x35, because 30 is closer to 32.