ulrichburke

Dear Toehead2001 (great moniker!) Will do A.S.A.P. Thankyou very, very much if that works! (Don't bristle!) Yours respectfully Chris.

Dear Everyone. OK, I know this says 'NOT for troubleshooting' - but Bud Brewster's overconfident about his 'Fixes All Problems' post, I've found an error message that's not even listed anywhere. I'm running XP SP3. I've tried the new version and got this error. I tried an older version that said 'For XP SP3' and got exactly the same error, which puzzled me hugely! Now I know it's said that older versions aren't supported but as this happens in both the new AND the old versions, I don't know what else to do. Here's the error message. System IO.FileNotFoundException. Could not load file or assembly. 'System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0 Culture+neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. File name: 'System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' atPaintDotNet.Setup.SetupWizard.MainImpl(String{}args) atPaintDotNet.Setup.SetupWizard.Main(String{}args.)in D:\src\pdn\pdn_3.5_11\src\SetupFrontEnd\SetupWizard.cs:line976 WRN:Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind feature logging, set the registry value {HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion\EnableLog}(DWORD) to 1. Note:There is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure logging. To turn the feature off, remove the registry value {HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion\EnableLog.} Do I just do what it says above and reinstall it? I'm a bit worried because it's telling me to make changes to the registry and I don't know what that would do to the other software I use. Yours head-scratchingly - remember, I DID try the latest version but it failed with exactly the same error messages (but different version numbers of course!) And I'm posting here because there doesn't seem to be a right place to post this. Chris.

Small addendum to the massive above (sorry about that, frustration hit my fingers) -I know you're gonna say 'group all the pics in Paint.net then they'll fill out the background' but what if I want to subsequently add a picture to the group, I'm gonna be right back at Square One with 628k PNG, massive black background! There's gotta be a way around that...

Dear Anyone. I got 3 lovely tips on how to remove backgrounds - but prob. because I'm dumbass I can't make any of them work and I've started a new question - before I get yelled at! - because I couldn't work out how to attach pics WITHOUT starting a new question! The attach pics. box only seems to appear on primary questions, not on replies. Anyway. The FIRST pic. is what I see when I drag one of the .PNGs you showed me how to create into a browser window, which I did so I knew what I'd see when I uploaded it. As you'll see, I got a little picture in the middle of a Humunguous black border! Tried all 3 solutions I was given, still ended up with small pic., vast black area around it. SO - being brand new to all of this - I looked at the picture in Paint.net and realised the blackness was the large area around the picture. You can't do anything about that unless you go down to 8 bit quality because that's the only time the .PNG transparency adjusters aren't greyed out. So first question - why is that? Why can't you adjust background transparency in 32 bit mode? Or any other mode? What I think I want to do - at least this sounds logical - is shrink all that checkerboard background you get in Paint.Net - I know checkerboard should mean transparent but as you can see in the attached file, browsers don't agree with you on this, at least Firefox sure don't! - so it exactly fits the picture, thus giving you a TINY, nice, border, not a massive screen filling one. I want to get a result so I can lay a whole row of pictures next to eachother with zero borders (ideal) or just tiny little ones like they've somehow done in this Google search page screenshot (saved in Gem Paint that comes with Windows) If the massive black background becomes white, it'll surely obscure the picture next to it? If you tell me a way to magically make it REALLY transparent, won't the fact it's there make for massive picture file sizes, or is that a fact of life when doing pictures to upload (it's just of internet friends, nothing salacious.) You'd think they'd have sorted out one universal picture format by now, wouldn't you? But as they haven't, please, I don't want pic sitting in middle of massive black background that theoretically should be transparent but isn't, I want pic. with nice neat tiny white edge or no edge at all so I can upload images and have them sitting next to eachother as the second enclosure does! I know I'm prob. gonna get howled at for not following instructions properly somewheres, but how do I shrink the border so it just fits the outline of the pic (and the magic wand tool didn't work at all, btw., all it did was cut out internal chunks of the picture, it didn't get rid of the background. I even deleted the background layer and it was STILL there, massive and black, when I dragged the pic. into a Firefox window!) Anyone know anything that WORKS for this, or can't Paint.NET achieve this yet, or do I need someone's plugin to be able to do this? OK, I've had to upload the pics to Photobucket because they're waaaay too big for here for some reason I flat don't understand. Here's the slideshow link, it's come up in reverse order for some reason, the SECOND one is what I get, the FIRST one is what I WANT to be able to do, why I couldn't upload it here was because the first one alone was 628K as a .PNG!! And you only allow 256 k, so how the heck anyone uploads anything here if picture files are that big I've no idea. Slideshow is here:- http://s1366.photobucket.com/user/Christopher_Burke/slideshow/ I reallty thought this was going to be something easy when I offered to de-border a friend's pictures! How stupid I was..... If Google can do it, there's gotta BE a way of doing it!! Yours frustratedly Chris.

Thankyou very, very much you two, will try out both ideas today. Love this community's helpfulness to a nOOb!! Yours with thanks Chris.

This isn't a reply, it's something that I posted on Paint Boy's thread than I thought it would be better as a follow-up question, kinda, on this thread so I'm posting it here too. I'm adding this not to usurp anything but just cos I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this kinda stuff... Someone said the poster Paint Boy was looking at looked smooth cos it had been scanned and bits of it were less than one pixel in size. BUT..... If he'd scanned it, wouldn't the scanning process have produced a copy made out of pixels? And once the copy, presumably made out of pixels cos I can't for the life of me find out anything else it could be made out of unless he's got some kinds scanner that turns things into vectors, had been made, how the heck would it have points on it smaller than one pixel? And if it's possible for a scanner that presumably turns things it scans into pixels to rebuild the image CAN use something smaller than one pixel to represent part of the image - why the heck can't Paint.Net do the same thing to make images smoother? I mean if it can SHOW the image with its less-than-one-pixel parts in its screen, then it can HANDLE less-than-one-pixel elements. If it can HANDLE them, why can't it CREATE them? The more dumbass questions - and they're serious questions, I seriously do have these problems understanding this cos the logic don't make sense - of mine people answer, the sooner I'll go away and leve you guys in peace... Yours hopefully Chris.

I'm adding this not to usurp anything but just cos I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this kinda stuff... If he'd scanned it, wouldn't the scanning process have produced a copy made out of pixels? And once the copy, presumably made out of pixels cos I can't for the life of me find out anything else it could be made out of unless he's got some kinds scanner that turns things into vectors, had been made, how the heck would it have points on it smaller than one pixel? And if it's possible for a scanner that presumably turns things it scans into pixels to rebuild the image CAN use something smaller than one pixel to represent part of the image - why the heck can't Paint.Net do the same thing to make images smoother? I mean if it can SHOW the image with its less-than-one-pixel parts in its screen, then it can HANDLE less-than-one-pixel elements. If it can HANDLE them, why can't it CREATE them? The more dumbass questionss - and they're serious questions, I seriously do have these problems understanding this cos the logicd don't make sense - of mine people answer, the sooner I'll go away and leve you guys in peace... Yours hopefully Chris.

Dear Anyone. OK, I KNOW this should be simple, I've even read instructions here how to do it but I flat can't make them work! Got JPEGS with black borders. I want to get rid of black borders. The instructions I read here - somewhere - said the following:- Posted 14 April 2011 - 10:29 PM Open Paint.NET. Add a new layer: Layers > Add New Layer In the Layers window, click on the layer named Background. Delete it. Layers > Delete Layer Begin your project. When done, save as PDN. Then, save as .PNG Problem 1 - when I load up a picture after deleting the background layer as per above, it recreates a background layer and puts it on that so the background layer don't STAY deleted (if it isn't SUPPOSED to stay deleted, why delete it in the first place) Problem 2 - I can't move the frickin picture to any other layer for love nor money nor chucking the computer out the window after spending almost a WHOLE DAY trying! I cut it from background layer. Select new layer. Choose 'Paste Into New Layer'. You don't get the picture in the new layer. You get a little outline of dashes around the edge of the new layer with a little holy cross in the centre, also composed of dashes, in its own little box. You get no visible picture. So I can't get onto the 'save as PNG' part of the instructions cos I can't make the first part work. And the reason I'm cutting it from the background layer is because I'm told it has to be in a new layer and I can't stop the system from recreating the background layer that's supposed to be deleted. AAAARRRRGH! Please, what the dog and duck am I doing wrong in something that looks so simple? Yours from a place of extreme frustration - if anyone wants to make sure I don't f'up getting rid of the borders when using the last pair of instructions, please pre-empt any further posts by me on this and point out any boneheaded mistakes I'm gonna make before I make them, please! - Chris.