IHaveNoName

Members
  • Content Count

    213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19

About IHaveNoName

  • Rank
    2018 Rookie of the Year

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I not been able to recreate that problem. Whatever resolution you chose in Resize should save and be applied to all layers when you click OK. What version of PDN are you using?
  2. Using 8 bit makes the files smaller but dos not seem to help with the display quality when used for medium sized icons. That's where the 'problem' is with PDN: just the medium size icon display. For the games controller icon I'm using if you use the Large/Extra Large icon option the PDN ones display as well the dedicated icon program's icons. But even if you use a single 256x256 PDN icon image for a desktop shortcut icon or Medium icon size in WE the 96x96 one from IcoFX looks better. And when you use an icon group file 256, 128, 64, 32, 16 WE will chose to use the 64x64 icon size for ^ those purposes which displays poorly in comparison to the other 64x64 one. As described, if you include 96x96 in the icon group it will use that by default. I've also just discovered that, a bit strangely, if you also include 72x72 in the icon group (another size not offered by PDN) it will use that by default instead. Even then that displays better than a 256x256 only PDN icon for medium sized icon use.
  3. That's what I thought too. The default PDN settings apply AA so I tried with/without for the creation of the master 512x512 image. I also tried using the AA Assistant plugin at various settings and neither made much difference as regards the display quality of the final .ICO. What I have found is that if you save the master 512x512 .PNG as a 256x256 .ICO only using PDN (by default it saves as 32x32 and 16x16 8/32bit so remember to untick those), apply AA Assistant to that and save again only as a 256x256 .ICO it does marginally improve the PQ for Medium size icons display. But that is not to the extent that you can't see the 96x96 one created by the dedicated icon creation program displays better.
  4. Just want to thank the guys here for those icon creating tips. I tested it out on a games controller I image I've made from scratch (based on the PS1/PS2) using PDN. I used a 512x512 canvas then saved it using PDN's .ICO save options. It was then saved again as a .PNG and converted to .ICO by IcoFX. These are obviously massive enlargements but the difference in quality is obvious and that translates to when they're actually in situ as desktop shortcut icons. But the advantage I did not expect was that when the icon groups for each were saved the other program had offered 96x96 32bit as an additional size option along with 256, 128, 64, 32, 16 32bit so I added that just as an afterthought. For whatever reason Windows chose to use the 96x96.ico for the desktop shortcut, Medium icon, Tile and Content display whilst the PDN one used the 64x64.ico instead. I tried a PDN generated 128x128 only icon as a comparison and the 96x96 was still visibly superior on the monitor with the resolution I'm using. But what is, somewhat, interesting is that if you select the Large or Extra Large icon display options in Windows Explorer the differences virtually disappear. In Small, List, Detail icon sizes the icons look pretty grotty whatever you do. It is really only at the medium icon display size I use where the quality difference is significant. The question to ask is what is the other program doing that PDN is not at this size and is there any plugin or settings that can be applied to PDN to improve the icon picture quality for these display sizes?
  5. Thanks for the replies, very helpful ideas. BTW it's not just PDN's .ico save option that produces these inferior quality results. I've tried with Irfanview which I've often used as a format converter in the past before gravitating to PDN - very similar results. It seems to be the Medium sized icons, whatever resolution they use, which are applied to Tiles (folder view), default desktop Folder and Shortcuts too where the problem is. The example below is typical: Extra Large and Large (Windows Explorer folder view) look great but when you use the default Medium or Tiling folder view the quality drops off a cliff. These are enlarged from the actual Medium folder view display size but you can clearly see the difference despite the custom one being saved as an icon group by PDN in exactly the same resolutions as the original's ico groups: 256, 128, 64, 48, 32 and 16 all 32bit of course.
  6. I have edited and created a lot of icons for an old games console using PDN but those have mostly been PNG/JPG 256x256 thumbnails. I have made also made quite a few 128x128 icons in a custom format for the same console. So I know what sort of subject matter works at those resolutions on a 480p displays. However when I've tried to translate that knowledge to the creation of PC icons, in particular for desktop shortcuts, I must be making a mistake somewhere. I've made some icons which I am happy with but they've all been relatively simple. When I've tried with more sophisticated or detailed designs either my own or online sourced, no matter how good the original quality, when they're converted to .ico (saved using all the icon group size/bit options) the resulting file, when applied to a shortcut or folder, looks ............ rubbish. Even quite simple flat designs, basically b/w clipart with no shading, shadows or reflections, display badly. Saving just as 128x128 32bit or just as 256x256 PNG both display equally unsatisfactorily. I've used Resource Hacker to extract icons groups from programs to customise them using PDN. Even at 24x24 resolution the icons groups often used to display in File Explorer looks good with quite detailed subject matter crisply displayed. But when I open them, usually working on the 256x256 PNG, customise it and then save as .ico using PDN the resulting icon, when applied to a folder or shortcut, looks notably inferior to the original even when I've done nothing more than alter the hue. The irony is that when you use the delete option the Y/N dialogue box displays the customised icon in its fully glory - sharp and detailed. So what am I doing wrong? Any ideas?
  7. I've actually had problems with the plugin myself so I'm probably not the best guy to answer. However I will: the install is slightly more complex than usual: you have four files to install: two to the root of the PDN folder ie. straight into the main PDN folder. The others two go into the "FileTypes" folder which should be adjacent to the Effects folder. It may be it is not created by default if you do not have it. So you might have to make it for yourself, as shown. NB. That plugin's readme says that any other existing SVG plugin's content must be removed. There is something odd though in that if you actually click on the link for the latest version, under the Moderator's Note, you're sent to the Git Hub page for the 0.3 Alpha version. That is just a single DLL you put in FileTypes. If you do then you can open SVGs no problem but there is no Save/Save As: SVG option. The link to the plugin lower down with the four files to install is the one I first tried too but, even though I'm pretty sure I installed it correctly I had display issues with the test SVG I used. It needs someone who knows more than I do to explain. But none of this actually helps Yoo who can't actually find the original image file now. Presumably it was been cached by PDN which is why it can attempted to be opened but the actual picture, however it was saved, is missing from the "images" folder where it was thought it was saved. This seems like a weird case because even if the original image being worked on was a SVG and somehow it was opened by PDN if either Save or Save As was used then it should have saved as one of the supported image types eg. default.pdn, in the folder intended. I hope installing the SVG plugin allows the image to opened and saved correctly but I'm not confident it will.
  8. I'm not sure how this could have happened because without the SVG plugin you can't even open a SVG let alone save it as one with PDN. So unless Yoo added the .svg extension where did that come from? If the SVG plugin is installed and it was saved correctly then it should open. Something is not right or we do not have all the relevant information. Still if it is saved as another format then Eli's solution just to remove the added extension could work.
  9. I've always thought it easier (only one hand required) just to use the mouse with the Line/Curve tool - left click to start the line and hold it down whilst moving the mouse pointer anywhere on the screen to extend or angle/rotate the line as required. Release left to end the line. For perfectly horizontal or vertical lines I favour using the Shapes (Square) default outline option instead. Change the line width to 1 pixel and just overlap the sides of the rectangle to create a single line. Alternatively use the Line/Curve tool - left click, hold as before and use the keyboard directional keys to draw the line up/down or across the screen.
  10. With that it is still a two part process and you'll get part bricks at the edges if the volume contained by the border does not match the fill full brick horizontal or vertical dimensions. It works and can be adjusted of course but, particularly if a narrow border is being used to match the brick outline, I think it is easier to do that with the border and bricks in two separate layers as Pixey suggested. More flexible too if for example you wanted to change the brickwork colour but not the border.
  11. I think I understand what Rockchick means. The short answer is that you can not do what you want in one go. If you create a rectangle using the main menu Draw Shape using Horizontal Brick, either Solid or Solid with Outline the brickwork at the edges will be raggedy half-bricks unless the image size is adjusted so that (horizontally) you have full bricks top and bottom. Left and right sides, because of the nature of brickwork ie. alternate layers overlapping the joins in the layer above and below, the edge can not be a straight border whatever you do. It is either alternate square tooth or half bricks like the horizontal. Pixey's solution, just add a solid border as a second layer above the brickwork layer, seems like the simplest and most flexible suggestion to me.
  12. Yes ^ that is how PDN has always worked AFAIK. If you put drop shadows on text written onto a solid colour background the drop shadows will be applied to the background ie. behind the whole image area and therefore completely hidden by the image itself. In the example provide if you untick "Keep original image" the area within the selection box will display as full black (if you're using default Drop Shadows settings). The drop shadows are being applied to the whole of that selected area and only that area. Offset won't work because the working space is, again, just defined as that selected area. All you can do using Drop Shadows is change the selected area's colour and transparency. Anything you want to apply drop shadows too needs to be in its own transparent background layer.
  13. This is a file association issue and IMHO a user should not change the default open with Windows Photo Viewer for any particular image file type except, at least for Windows 7 > animated GIFs where the MS OS designers decided that unlike WinXP the WPV should not support animated GIFs and the default is to open them in IE or your prefrred browser. Great decision. In this case the OP appears to have set MS Paint as the default program for, I would suspect, all the image file types he uses. You can replace that with PDN very simply just as TrevorOutlaw suggests - right click on the image file, select "Open with", click on the "Choose default program................", select PDN which will almost certain be listed and tick the "Always use the selected program to open this type of file". If that is really what you want. You'll be tempted to do this for all image file types and you'll have to do that manually for each one unless you set PDN as the default image viewer and, IMHO, that is a bad idea. I think you can set it as the default image viewer for everything during installation but there's no way to do that in the PDN settings. However being able to distinguish quickly between the numerous image file types using the different icons Windows Photo View applies I find a great help and preferable to using a single image file icon for all types. However there is a difference between just picture viewing and picture editing. If you look at the right mouse click context menu for an image you'll see the "Edit" option at the top. Setting PDN as default for that is a very good idea. Again I think that can not be done via PDN settings and has to be chosen during installation (it may even be the default install setting) but this thread describes the simple registry edit which can be done if it is not set as the default editor already. BTW be very careful when setting up any file type associations or you might be lumbered with ones in the context menu that are totally inappropriate. Another piece of questionable MS OS design is that whilst setting a program as default is simple there are no built in tools to disassociate them. It requires either a registry edit or use of purpose designed third part tools like DefaultProgramsEditor or Unassoc. The latter is Vista/Win7 only.
  14. Yes, the easiest thing is to do once the image is saved as a PNG and you're back on the PDN main screen is simply click the Undo button. As flattening any layers is the last part of the process involved before saving as a PNG the layers will then unflatten and you're back to where you were before you saved the image. I do that all the time when saving work in progress and want to check how it looks as a PNG or JPG. Undo is probably my most used PDN function.
  15. Are we really taking this thread seriously? IMHO it stinks (word chosen specifically) of a rather unpleasantly racist joke. Reading about who AOC actually is makes me even more suspicious about that and action should be considerd to remove this thread and OP from this forum ASAP. That is unless, of course, he can provide a bloody good reason as to why he wants to combine a picture of a cartoon turd with that of a mixed race, controversial US politician.