Ketenks

Compare compressed file to compressed file. Your compressed video was 278MB and my compressed image of 20 layers is 93MB. So your video is 3x the size of the image while it is compressed and if it was decompressed then I'd imagine they'd be a little closer to each other's value since the image file has a ton of transparency and the video has a regular distribution of variation throughout it's content.

That's awesome! I'm glad to hear it. One thing though, isn't tiling the image different from rendering a collection of pixels that touch each other based on their top-left corner position? If the entire image is coded based on only what is there, then tiling would break up the continuity of the pixels that touch each other. You could connect sparse pieces together by drawing a direct line of transparency to every group of pixels separated by transparency and render the whole image as one group of pixels where only the pixels that have information are stored and the few lines of transparency that connect them and the coordinate position of the top-left most pixel with respect to the canvas. That's what I thought would erase storing all the transparency information. I don't understand what the tiling represents, so I can't say what it means but I'm trying to make my "coordinate position" idea more clear since they seem to be doing different things in my mind.

Ah, now it makes sense. Why shouldn't there be a way to "compress" the layers in memory? What you are saying is that paint.net treats every layer as a whole new image, but what if it didn't. What if it only considered the graphics that were there and gave coordinate positions to each separate graphic? Then it wouldn't need to store or decompress all that transparency.

Again, there isn't reason to believe that a 93.2MB file decompresses to 3.3GB. There must be something else happening beyond compression. Maybe it's how paint.net remembers the layering of the image, so compressing a pdn file actually gets much higher compression ratios than a single image?

You uh, your example is a full white...image. How is that an example? Most images don't experience more than 20% compression if they have enough detail. I can understand how business logos and basic graphic designs may get more, based on compression because they have more similar tones but photos and most paintings don't get more than 20% generally.

So you're saying that the 93.2MB is the compressed form, but then does that mean it is actually 3.3GB in size without compression? I thought compression only gets you 5-20% space saved. This would be a 72% compression ratio which means there must be something else going on.

Ok, real quick. The file size of the pdn in question is 93.2MB. My total memory available is 7.4GB and paint.net uses 0.1GB of RAM on start up. But when I load the 93.2MB pdn with only 20 layers, the memory usage goes up 3.3GB! That's 3x the size of the original pdn. Now I don't know what goes on under the hood and what is required to do everything but first impression: that seems to be quite excessive. Utilizing 3.3GB of ram for a 1GB file when paint.net by itself only uses 0.1GB? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Now hold up. This is what I got doing that: I resized it from 1024 x 781 to 2000 x (maintained ratio) using Nearest Neighbor, then I resized it back to the size using nearest neighbor. Then I pasted the original image in the top layer and gave it XOR blend mode and got this. When I doubled the size and then halved the size it did give me a black screen in the blend mode though. So I guess it only works with doubling and halving the size.

So that's what that is for. Neat. Thanks. I'm mostly going to compare the Best Quality option with the Nearest Neighbor option and see the trade offs.

Ok cool. I will check that out.

I think I understand at this point, that the only way to resize an image in a lossless way is to save the original image and always resize from that. So it makes sense that paint.net would not hold onto every image like this. But yeah, I can just hold onto all the images I need.

I understand that. You're not answering my question.

So let's say I have a 1200 x 1200 pixel image and I resize it to 2400 x 2400. If I undo the resize I expect that I could resize and undo the resize over and over with no loss of information right? But let's say I save the image and then reopen the image and resize it back to the 1200 x 1200 resolution. Would this then be lossy? And if so, wouldn't there be a way to make it not lossy if all the transformations are done within paint.net? Couldn't you effectively reverse the resize transformation regardless? Maybe it isn't lossy! Let me know how paint.net handles these sorts of things.

I got my answer I needed. If you need to trouble shoot do you want me to send my crash logs to the crash log email address? At this point, I just make sure that I am not running too many programs at the same time.

I don't know what is going on. I just wanted to know how to increase the memory of the paint.net. But apparently it doesn't limit itself but it will use everything available. Of course I have a 64bit OS to have 8GB of ram.

I only have this laptop. And it's on its last leg and wouldn't be worth investing in it. I might as well buy a new one when this one finally dies. But I'm guessing from the first reply that paint.net will use whatever is available and isn't limiting itself to a specific amount of ram. And this is what I needed to know. I thought it might be limiting itself but I guess a 2400 DPI image is a lot of memory to work with and I should close out all other programs while working on it.

I've never done vector images before. I'm trying Inkscape and it doesn't have the same tools. It seems to treat the pixels differently. At this point, I can make much more progress with paint.net saving every 5 minutes than learning something new. But I will see whether it can do what I need.

Would GPU rendering do anything even though I have this: Video card: Intel(R) HD Graphics 3000 (v:8086, d:126, r:9), Microsoft Basic Render Driver (v:1414, d:8C, r:0) It's just a laptop with onboard graphics card. EDIT: Well, instead of paint.net just crashing, now my whole computer crashed with that setting on. So I'll stay away from it.

It's crashing over and over. I have to save every 5 minutes. I'm certainly using a large PDN, it has to have 2400 DPI for printing purposes. But I also have other programs open. How much memory will that DPI take? EDIT: In fact it's saying I don't have enough memory for copying small images to clipboard.

How do I increase the memory for the program? I have an available 8GB.

Thanks for the help guys

It would be great to snap the center of a circle or square to the center of the canvas. Is that possible?

Well nevermind. I found I had the Print It + plugin in the tools and I could choose within that printer option to print it to scale. So disregard this thread. Thanks.

I've got an image that I want to be life size. I've got the canvas set to 300 PPI and the image is said to be 2.14" x 3". I print it and it is the size of the whole page. It appears the printing options are "Fit to whole page" and then preset sizes on down from there. I don't want any preset sizes but the actual size. I want this card to print exactly the size it says in the Canvas option. What am I missing here?

Exactly. Props though for where it is. I think the interface is spectacularly intuitive which is what I guess you are trying to maintain when considering any new features. A great job. Keep it up and be bold. It's the reason I started using it and it's the reason I keep using it.