Piotr

I can think of some ways to improve this: 1. Ignore paint.net's restrictive rules of the palette system, namely the 96 color limit. Instead, allow reading more colors from the .txt file; for example, if the .txt file contains 256 lines, it should read 256 colors from it. 2. When there are fewer than 96 lines in the .txt palette file, the plugin adds white to remaining entries. This can produce unexpected results when the .txt palette file has no white. It should treat this .txt palette file as if it actually had fewer colors. 3. What formula do you use for the difference (picking the color with the lowest difference)? I bet it's rederror+greenerror+blueerror or sqrt(rederror²+greenerror²+blueerror²). Also, when many colors tie for the lowest difference, it chooses whichever color appears last in the palette. Please allow an option so that when many colors tie for the lowest difference, it chooses whichever color appears first in the palette. Also, please allow custom weights, so that when the user types 30, 59 and 11, the difference formula is 30×rederror+59×greenerror+11×blueerror. Also, please allow choosing between Manhattan distance (x×rederror + y×greenerror + z×blueerror) or Euclidean distance (sqrt((x×rederror)²+(y×greenerror)²+(z×blueerror)²)). 4. Remove that weird Interpolate thing. It is not that useful; even worse, it is on by default.

Apparently Microsoft is nice to me, at least at some point in time. The Paint in XP is the best to me, but the XP itself was bad. Windows 7 was even worse, so glad I have Windows 10. I'm using Paint in XP when I want to draw a png picture. Don't ask me why, these are my opinions.

That's right, I prefer Paint. The only reason I still have paint.net is because of its circle tool, generating identical results as my implementation: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/137683607/ but in an image. Why this circle tool is special? It's because it correctly includes pixels inside a radius, and excludes pixels outside a radius. My implementation allows players to adjust radius (0 to 10 tolerance is -0.5 to 0.5 radius).

" If the color box was made like that, it might be to have more space for the canvas. So, doing it like the way you've demonstrated may clutter the workspace. " No. The third window of what it should look like is an extra feature that allows people to have custom palettes, with custom sizes. This image demonstrates 18x16 setting for large palette. I use Windows 10. The Paint in XP is simply an .exe file that can run on Windows 10. The reason I don't like Paint in 7 is that it has a different palette. No! The eraser from Paint will not confuse beginners. In fact, it would be intuitive that background color is the color for erase. Also I don't like layers. I want to be able to do simple things without using complex features, like layers. And what you said doesn't change the fact that I want different defaults. Black on white is definitely not the most common color scheme I want. Then how will you explain this? Paint in XP uses the same text engine as Notepad, and renders the same text. Paint.net? But the thing is that I have a bitmap font called Custom Font that you see on my window titles. And I can't convert it to vector easily because it will be ugly if you were to use it in a size, say, 1 pixel more than bitmap height. Paint in XP allowed bitmap fonts, so why won't Paint.net? Always having 800x600 in 99% size is different behavior than having last set size in 100% size. Ctrl + A, press M drag the corner nubs doesn't work because it doesn't change canvas size and it resizes instead of cropping, like Paint does when you resize.

How is my color scheme weird? What do you mean by "controls"? On a red paper, erasers turn pencil drawings red. They don't somehow remove the red color of paper. Please allow erasers to be what they were in Paint, and not remove the "any color feature" and square color, and snapping to grid lines with eraser. Also note that this topic was posted on edge of my sleeping time. Here is the continuation: 4. There are no convenient resizing. Paint had only three (bottom, bottom right, right) but it's better than nothing. 5. Both programs have issue that the starting image (secondary color/background color) is always white, and primary color/text color is always black instead of allowing to choose default colors. 6. Text tool is blurry; it doesn't use standard text rendering and doesn't allow bitmap fonts. 7. For compatibility, it's ideal to add GDI32.dll drawing of lines and ellipses, and therefore also drawing shapes for circles used in Paint in XP. It's really different, there are a lot of different ways you can draw a 10x10 circle for example.

Paint in XP is just a lot better than paint.net. 1. New image is always in 800x600, and to make matters worse, in 99% size. In Paint, it was in last set size. 2. Eraser is always transparent. In Paint, you can select any background color to erase, and the eraser is square. Eraser in Paint is a convenient option to both enlarge drawing size and use background color instead of text color. Right-clicking with eraser in Paint will replace text color with background color. 3. Paint.net shows the color circle behind the "More >>", and no RGB sliders or text boxes. That is strange and should not exist. It should have been done like this: And not like this:

My gimp plugin for scaling algorithms: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2gmgp2tair3r2wa/scale2x.py?dl=0 Download gimp, then move the plugin to C:\Program Files\GIMP 2\lib\gimp\2.0\plugins. The xBR implementations are no-blend. Image you should use: Results: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2jybtkqvktz7fgy/AABp_lpsc-g0shkYDhimuxura?dl=0 Note: xBR implementations have the difference functions replaced by equality. One part of xBR picks a pixel with least difference from original (which is used in the enlarged pixel) and I couldn't reproduce it. I added edge detection to fix it. The modified version of xBR 3x rounds the tips of 1-thick lines and single pixels. xBR 2x only interpolates bottom 45° triangles for a full pixel in the enlarged pixel. This makes the 45° lines and triangles look good, but slightly biased upward. The alternative version interpolates 45° triangles for a full pixel if no other corner has a triangle. This makes the images similar to Scale2x (good 1-thick lines only). Still better than your version which has no good 45° shapes.