r543

Can understand, I've generally seen it happen at non "power of two" values, same for other applications not behaving well with Scaling, so that's why I was wondering if that was 200% (Guess there isn't much of a point in replying back and forth here (don't really want to clog up the update thread) I can see the issue, only thing that would be interesting to know would be if it works at 200%)

I saw that, was wondering at which Zoom Setting this was and if it's something that only happens on certain ones or even at 200%. Makes me wonder if there was a way to control that more, as in for 200% (since for the others this would happen regardless)

Were the icons really that broken on high DPI Screens? Do have one at work but I don't really remember seeing them being blurry, and from what I remember, Icons would usually just be upscaled, so unless you went with something "exotic" like 125% and 150%, 200% would show them fine (they'd just be "pixely" in comparison to other things made for High DPI Screens) Or is this related to anything regarding .net Framework Applications? Sad that we won't have the old icons anymore (would've loved a option to use them, but that would probably require additional support in the future when new stuff gets added) found them superior in many ways, but not much we can do I guess... Having the Move Layers Command unfortunately makes that Menu quite big, moving to top/bottom is nice though. Not sure why 180° got added as one could just repeat the action of 90° rotation again. Showing Plugin Errors and the Bad Plugin fix are nice though.

Saw this Thread a while ago and wanted to comment on it. Tbh I'm not entirely happy with the redesign as well. In my view there's no need to really follow that "Modern Hype", just because something's hip and new doesn't mean it needs to be done by everyone. I understand that the reason for this change was High DPI, but I find such high dpi screens a gimmick in the first place. More about this here: The issue that I see with it is that it's not really something that's required and adds more trouble: I assume that the old icons were made with 16x16 and 32x32 in mind, so they aren't available as larger versions that could be used for higher DPI? Can understand how "Modern UI" Icons are easier to make, especially for .svgs The issues that I have with it though are following: Icons are harder to find/tell apart Due to having the same color now, many icons and look similar at first glance, like Open/Paste. Before, each icon stood out more due to mostly having a different color, the higher detail probably also helped at well. As for the Toolbox, it feels harder for me to really find what I'm looking for, although if I'd say that comes from the icons being mostly larger now. Plugins Plugins don't change with this of course. So it's up to each Plugin creator to update their own icons as well, good luck having that done on Plugins that haven't been updated in years. There was no need to really cause a clash of styles with new icons as the Win 7 ones still looked fine, but I guess it all has to be Modern UI like? As far as I know, Paint.Net doesn't really have ways to Customize the Program regarding the UI, so we're pretty much just left with and forced to use the new set of UI Icons. Having a option to have the old Icons would be nice, but I doubt that it would happen or be something that Rick would want to keep supporting with addition of new icons. Sorry if this post is negative, but honestly not happy with the responses of the Administrators that I've been seeing. Instead of saying why this was a neccessary change and whatnot, all people seem to get is a "Get used to it, you don't remember the old ones anyways"

Hello Rick, nice to see the Developer himself here. (seen you in a few threads before and do find it nice on how there are plans to use a different algorithm(think it was that) to create better shapes), I stumbled upon it today and then wanted to post about it, unfortunately I entered my password wrong the first time, wasn't sure if it was this or that since I didn't use the site that many times so far(sorry, lacking time), and after entering it again wrong I had to wait for the 15 minute cooldown(guess Paint.net got attacked quite a lot in the past? two login attempts do seem a bit low, but gives me another reason to keep me logged in :P, I'm aware on how this can be bad but this is my personal PC so it's a place where I can more or less use it). - With that out of the way, to the main post: I've messed around with this and found a way to have it happen, when moving parts around, the old part(as in the original selection) will have the Color Values of Color 2 minus the transparency being set to 0, this is kind of an issue(even if I know that this function is there for certain things, been years but I remember Win. XP Paint doing "overlaying" via the second color.), wonder if a option can be added to not have this happen? Thanks for the help. - I do have a little offtopic thing regarding the circle tool, if a circle gets drawn filled, it's almost always "pixel perfect" meaning all "4 sections" are the same, however if I only draw the outline I often get something that I can't fully work with(unless it has antialiasing and is upscaled, but for nearest neighbor it doesn't really work out) think if line thickness gets set it's Radius is also bigger than the filled one, making me use workarounds to get the "proper" outline I want. I'm guessing there might be reasons for certain things to be that way while others are more "unplanned"? Edit: Guess the effect you're describing(sorry I only got around reading this after posting the current situation) is what I'm having, or well, at least similar, although for me it's the second color(which with a default setup, would be black through). Another offtopic thing but I remember reading that Paint.net doesn't save the color of transparent pixels, but it looks like it does? Might have been an outdated page.

Thanks for all the help. I haven't had much time recently but I do plan to check out the plugins soon.

Hello, first of all, thanks for the replies Unfotunately I've been lacking time recently so I couldn't reply to here until now. Sadly none of those are what I meant. I usually do pixelart like things, so I'm setting tolerance to 0% and don't have any transparent pixels/antialiasing unless I place it myself, it's a really odd thing that happens in paint.net and once you export it to PNG or so it's no longer there -> must be something with the pdn format and/or paint net seeing the pixels as different even if they aren't(the color picker tool also tells me that it's the same transparency). I'll report again here once I've had this happen again, possibly trying to find out what causes this behaviour. I wonder if this was fixed in a recent update?

Hello Community Recently I've been working on an animated GIF again, since I had the agif and apng plugin installed, I thought I'd use that. Sadly the GIF preview wasn't available(it was in the past? might be because the image was rather small) and the GIF ended up having "random pixels" due to compression, even through each Frame used less than 256 colors, which shouldn't have happened in my view. I've done a quick search but haven't really found an alternative GIF Plugin, while Unfreez is nice to use, doing it directly via PDN with the layers would make it much easier, without relying on a extra program(not that I have anything against Unfreez) and also allows you to set the loop amount, so I wanted to ask if there are any alternatives that create proper "uncompressed" gifs and what Plugins the Community is using.

Hello Paint Net Community, I've stumbled upon this a while but haven't gotten around asking, hope that someone can maybe explain this. In order to understand what I mean it's best to replicate this, I'm sure you'll see it yourself then. Or it would be but I can't get it consistently to work: Basically, moving around a selected section leads to "ghost transparent pixels" being in it's place, so once you color the transparency, those won't get colored. Has anyone else had this effect happen to them?