IHaveNoName

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IHaveNoName

  1. One reason to use a third party tool for compressed file types is that AFAIK no Windows OS can open RAR files natively. If you're installing something like 7-Zip which can do that you might as well use it for ZIP files too. Its own .7z format is also being used a lot now instead of the standard ZIP format for downloads although in PDN's case I've not come across any plugins that use it. PeaZip is a good alternative as it can open most compression formats too, including 7-Zip. BTW contrary to some of the lousy info you find out there only one tool can actually create or add to RAR files: WinRAR which is jealously guarded paid for software that also supports other compression formats including 7-Zip. In the absence of the necessity to create or add to RAR compressed archives 7-Zip, PeaZip or similar are preferable.
  2. Excellent, 'just' a naming issue then. Pleased the suggestion solved the problem. But it doesn't explain why the Umbuntu Mono Filled font displayed in the PDN font list but could not be used.
  3. I think it would depend on the program used to create the new font but I don't know why such a program would create a bitmap font when the base font and other prime fonts in the same family display and can be used by PDN. It probably is something very technical and no doubt RB will confirm or explain what the problem might be. However, I've just downloaded and installed the 13 Umbuntu Family fonts myself and PDN displays and can use 4 of them, as installed: Umbuntu, Umbuntu Condensed, Umbuntu Light and Umbuntu Mono. But if you go into your Fonts folder you'll find there are actually only two family font sets: Umbuntu and Umbuntu Mono. All the alternative fonts in the family like Umbuntu Bold, Bold Italic and Italic are all named just Umbuntu too. This is typical of font sets as those display options are part of the most text display programs. What I'm thinking is that your Umbuntu Mono Filled is not being properly recognised as a different font in the same family despite displaying correctly in the PDN font lists. If it is possible can you rename the font to something else, preferably not even Umbuntu eg. Umb MF. Back up the existing font file first and remove it from the Fonts folder of course then install the renamed version and test if that works. With the renaming it should install as a standalone font in Fonts rather than as part of the Umbuntu Mono font family. If it still does not work with PDN then chances are it is what Pixey said and likely RB will confirm is another PDN bitmap font display issue.
  4. I've never even thought of copying images direct from a browser using Crtl + A then Ctrl+V. I always use the context menu "Save Image As" so that method is new to me and although I have no intention of changing my ways I decided I'd give it a go with old Firefox v54 (32bit) and up to date Waterfox v56 (64bit) Portable which I use on one PC. I thought it might be an image format issue but It worked using several different sample images I tried, JPG, PNG and BMP, and I just couldn't reproduce the problem described by the OP. As long as the image is (Ctrl+V) pasted or saved and copied by any other means into a PDN (current version of course) pre-prepared transparent layer it still pastes with a transparent background. If you use PDN's "Paste Into A New Image" as you'd expect it pastes full size with no background and if you use "Paste Into New Layer" and the image is smaller than the default size the new layer has a transparent background with the default white background layer below. The problem does sound like it must be a specific browser version issue.
  5. At what point of the PDN Save As process does this happen? If you've chosen "Desktop" from the side menu then that is all you should need to do. If there was an existing PNG with the same name on the Desktop it should just prompt you that the file already exists and ask if you want to overwrite it? Look at the original picture file if it is something you're editing rather than created from scratch using PDN. Check the Properties to see if it is "Read Only". If it is untick that and try saving it again. I'm not sure why a "Read Only" file would provoke that sort of, unhelpful, error message but it might do. I'm thinking if you do that you may have to re-import the file into PDN which may be treated as a new image and any work you've done on the original may not be applied. So I'd first trying try to save it changing the name or save format (.pdn). I'm not confident that will work but, as what is effectively a copy, it might override any original attributes preventing it from being saved with the original name/format.
  6. That plugin requires Ghostscript to be installed to work apparently. This is peculiarly current for me too because just yesterday I was creating some icons and the only source I could find for quality images of some logo and text elements I needed was a web site that for some reason presented all the downloads only as PDF files. I went searching for PDF to JPG or PNG conversion software and it seems like there is nothing out there except online conversion web sites. I think it is possible if you have Adobe Acrobat then you can use Print and choose the save file format but with other things Adobe like Adobe Reader it has to be done online too. Other PDF readers I had a look at do not offer any file type conversion facility. In the end I just went for a screen capture using Lightscreen of the quite large PDF images which are more than good enough for the 256x256 icon size I'm using.
  7. You mean on a secure digital card? I would wait for RB's advice on this but I suspect you'd just treat like if it was any other portable app that had been installed on a flash drive or other external storage drive and just delete whatever is there in the normal way. I'm surprised it installed on the SD card at all, if that is what you do mean, for the reason Pixey has just posted.
  8. I may be wrong but I don't think the OP has a problem finding the file. If that was the problem PDN would simply report the file could not be found. From what was said the file is being opened correctly but not recognised as a PDN file or any other image file. As another has suggested here that sounds like an extension naming issue. Whatever format the file was saved in should make no difference PDN should still open it if it has the correct extension for the file type. I've checked and that is the error message you get when a PNG image file is saved as:- image name.png.pdn I would suggest that the OP has accidentally renamed the original file (may be by using Save rather than Save As) to that or some similar mistake. By default Windows does not show the actual file extension so to delete that and replace it with the likely now correct .png they will have to use the folder view options to display the actual extension being used (for Windows 7) :- Windows Explorer > Organize tab > Folder and search options > View tab and then untick the option to "Hide extensions for known file types" > click Apply. Now go to where that image file is and it will show the actual extension, probably .pdn. Change it to .png and once done that should be it. It should now display with the default .png Windows icon and open in PDN as a PNG. When you exit from changing the extension Windows will flag up a warning message about the file may not open blah, blah, blah. Ignore it. You should change back the Folder.....> View menu option to re-hide file extensions again. Once done, rename the image so it is not actually named "image name.png" or whatever the naming problem was.
  9. That is an effective alternative method for creating the contrast needed for the Magic Wand to be able to select the precise outline of the bear. It certainly gives a much cleaner outline than my attempt but hand drawing the border must have taken some time.
  10. Those ways may work better but if it had been me and not being aware of those methods I would have gone back to an old school photographic technique: a high contrast mask. You simply copy the picture into another layer then convert that copy into b/w then up the contrast/alter the brightness until you get a good clean outline. The bear in the picture has a very distinctive darker line around its border and that should mean a pretty clean outline of that would be created by such as mask. You'd probably need to flood the rest of the bear with black to create a full silhouette. Now use the Magic Wand Tool to define the silhouette's outline, swap to the original picture layer and use that to remove the background. Below is is a very crude 5 minute attempt. The transparent background will display as white posted here. The problem is that it is a very low contrast image and the difference in tone, even with the darker outline, is not clear enough to create a clean mask. That was always the trouble you had when this was done photographically, retouching the lith (high contrast b/w) mask was always necessary. If I was doing this I'd take a lot more time cleaning up the edge of the mask and the picture with background removed. I'd probably feather the edge of the picture so any replacement background blended better. But it is proof of concept if those other techniques do not satisfy.
  11. There have been several threads posted about this sort of matter recenty including one I started myself:- https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/113810-text-and-text-window-installed-fonts-missing-from-menu/?do=findComment&comment=554883 There are system fonts which the main PDN text tool does not offer but some plugins actually do and vice versa. The technical explanation by Rick Brewster in that thread is that PDN uses DirectWrite and many plugins use GDI. Each has different typographic support criteria. Someone here correct me if I'm wrong but DirectWrite is supposed to support GDI but I noted in that MS doc there is some sort of issue involving installing fonts from "untrusted sources". The OS (Operating System) requires "elevated privileges to assure all installed fonts are trusted". I think what that means in effect is that PDN and some of its plugins have different 'white' lists for fonts. The other thing Rick Brewster mentioned ie. that DirectWrite does not support Bitmap fonts (like Terminal) so if you add that into the equation then the difference in the font support between the OS, PDN and some of its plugins has an explanation even if rather technical. The practical consequence for users is that there is nothing you can do except accept these font support anomalies. EDIT Pixey's suggestion may well work with fonts that are marked as hidden but that is definitely not the case with Small Fonts, System and Terminal. None of those are hidden fonts, I have them on my PC and the only option available is actually to Hide them. Confirmed if you click on Properties for each font too. The unsupported Bitmap font explanation is most likely what the problem is with Small Fonts and System too.
  12. Particularly with simple, monochromatic shapes, as in Pixey's example, on a different coloured plain or transparent background instead of using Invert Selection you could use the Magic Wand tool to select the area outside the part of the image you do not want to flood. Another suggestion to avoid such problems flooding the whole image is to use another layer below the main image just for the background. Working on the image content in a transparent background layer on top of that gives you more options too ie. you can try different colour backgrounds/borders/frames etc without the annoyance of accidentally flooding the rest of the image.
  13. Ctrl + Mouse Wheel, useful tip. Thanks for reminding us about that.
  14. My simple solution would just to try deleting, specifically, Oswald-Light from your Font folder. If it is not there it can't be used so, in theory, you should get the regular version being used as default. EDIT: I've just done that myself and it works. As I described below the problem is the font name: all three family font members are named "Oswald" and presumably the first alphabetically is what is used by default. Just go to Control Panel > Appearance and Pesonalization > Fonts (or whatever path your Windows OS uses to display the stored fonts). Find the Oswald font set click on it and delete "Oswald-Light". After that if you use PDN you should find it uses Oswald-Regular. Although Oswald-Bold precedes it alphabetically I'm guessing it is the convention not to display a bold font when a regular one is available as emboldening and/or italicizing a regular font are usually options provided by the text writing tool being used. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/113810-text-and-text-window-installed-fonts-missing-from-menu/?do=findComment&comment=554878 I open that thread about a similar sort of matter a few weeks ago. The bottom line apparently is that if PDN or a plugin does 'like', for whatever technical reason, a particular font/font set there is nothing you can do about it. The problem may even be with the original font naming; many 'free' alternative font family sets name the font ie. its actual embedded name the same. It is surprisingly difficult to rename a font, especially if it is not a .ttf, and even if that has been done there is no guarantee that PDN or a particular PDN text plugin would list separately every font in that family no matter however they were renamed.
  15. I'm not a copyright lawyer but I have had a little experience with copyright issues in relation to my own photography, selling digital and full rights use etc. Not to get too pedantic about this it should be pretty obvious you can not use any part of copyrighted material, in this case a logo, for commercial purposes without permission. The definition of what constitutes commercial purposes is open to legal interpretation and that also does vary internationally. To get even more pedantic just posting a poor quality copy here in a forum could be seen as a breach of copyright under many countries' IP (intellectual property) rights laws. I would suspect there are plenty of other unintended copyright breaches here and on every forum/web site that allows posting of attachments/avatars and other images. Most of the time the owners are not going to mind 'fair use' in such circumstances if it is not done for obvious commercial gain. It is effectively free advertising but legally they could object if they were so minded.
  16. You probably need at least three layers to do this well. Black outlining was clearly used and, although the original image is very small, as welshblue demonstrates it does look like drop shadows was used too. But my guess would be that another text layer beneath the yellow one may have been used as well, converted to pure black that can be shifted down a few pixels to give an effect/bolster the offset drop shadows and outlining. The thicker white background outlining must have been done in a separate lower layer too and it looks to me as if that was feathered but also then copied into another layer below. Either white drop shadows with wider blur or some other type of blurring or wider feathering was likely used on that.
  17. Are we talking about actual prints rather than digital files? If they are prints then:- Exactly what size are they because "picture card" (postcard?) size can mean anything from 5"x3.5" to 8.5"x6.5" (whole-plate). Officially recognised postcard size is roughly 6"x4"? As prints the original size and their actual photographic quality ie. original camera format/resolution/definition/film stock grain will limit the enlargement that is possible. A4 is roughly a x8 enlargement of a 35mm negative which was considered the maximum size an image viewed at typical reading distance could take. Good for single page use in newspapers and magazines but highly dependent on viewing distance if enlarged beyond that. So it depends very much on the final use intended as to how much a photograph can be enlarged without the picture quality deteriorating to the point it is not usable. For use on screen, assuming you have a scanner of some sort, scan the print in the usual way and simply see what it looks like when enlarged to the size you want. It is far quicker to do a test like that to see if the result is going to be acceptable.The scanner may even have built in enhancements to ensure picture quality is kept as high as possible. But it can't enhance detail that is not there in the original. Remember too I'm talking about a print taken from an original negative and yet it sounds like you want to enlarge a "picture card" size print ie. copy a smaller print and enlarge it up to A4. That means further unavoidable reduction in picture quality. If you have the original negatives then those are always what you should always use. Colour or b/w? What paper surface are they printed on? Glossy, preferably unglazed is the ideal. Smooth matt finish is OK but anything with texture ie. Silk, Satin or Stipple finish, which were commonly used by mass market photographic printers for decades, is going to reduce the picture quality possible even further. More information, and maybe other things I've haven't even considered, will be required for better tailored advice.
  18. So a user just can not use certain font types with those text plugins, just about understood . It was actually the Warownia font I was most interested in using, an open source font family very similar to Helvetica and, for the purpose intended, a pretty much perfect alternative. I've since found other Text Formation plugins that have specific font support issues including xod's Circular Text and toe_head2001's own Text Window. Circle Text, Rotate Text, Rotate TextSUI and Spiral Text however are OK with more fonts or at least one of the fonts I could use for the project that prompted this thread. However I've also discovered that even the latter plugins mentioned do not support some fonts which PDN's Text options do support like Walrus Bold from my previous screenshot examples. None at all support fonts like OPTIRussian-Gothic (another Helvetica alike), and others with the OPTI prefix. From the information provided here (thanks) there is obviously more than just one reason a particular font may not be supported by a particular plugin or indeed by PDN itself. In short there is nothing that can be done about it. Knowing that is actually helpful because it means that if you are creating an image that requires a particular font or particular text effect you have to make alternative provision for the font's incompatibility with those plugins in the design.
  19. You live and learn. Thanks for that. I've only been using PDN for 8+ years and had no idea you could do that. 😳 Any ideas about the other matter: why the PDN Text font list and those plugins mentioned do not displaying the full installed system Fonts collection and differ from one another too?
  20. I've often been mildly annoyed at PDN Text font size options gap between 48pt and 72pt and usually just resize the font layer when I need an intermediate size . But I thought there must be a plugin to make it simpler and found both the Text+ and Text Window plugins offer very much what I was looking for and more. However I found that the font I was using in the main PDN Text font list was not being offered in either plugin. When I compared the fonts listed by the plugins and the PDN main font list I noticed other missing fonts both those listed by the plugins and PDN itself. I include a screenshot showing one small section of the PDN fonts list on the left and the equivalent Text Window plugin on the right. There are plenty of other cases these are just examples. The missing fonts on each side are underlined in red. Walrus Bold and Warownia in the main list are missing from both the plugins' font list whilst Vrinda, which the plugins both display, is missing from the main PDN list. Initially I thought it was a TTF /OTF thing but it isn't there are both types displayed/missing in both menu lists. Access permissions don't appear to be the cause of the problem either. Vrinda is a default hidden font, presumably because it is used by the OS system or some other 'important' program. But there are examples of similarly hidden fonts appearing in both lists and others which only display in one list but not the other like Vrinda but in the PDN font list rather than the plugins. In short: I can see no common factor in any case except that both the plugins appear to display identically to each other. Any explanation as to why this is happening and any solution appreciated.
  21. Thanks for the info. There was a strange coincidence yesterday. https://forums.getpaint.net/topic/113789-paintnet-crashes-on-start-up/?tab=comments#comment-554679 Pixey suggested using the repair option. Is the error message shown there the prompt to repair null54 described?
  22. I've meant to ask about this before: I'm inquisitive and going through the files in the PDN installation I've noticed there are three different files named in relation to PDN Repair: an .exe, a .config and a .pdb. In Windows Control Panel > Programs > Paint.net there is no manual repair option available unlike some other programs, just uninstall. The .config file suggests that the PDNRepair.exe is or may be running every time on start up. Is that correct? Just curious to know when and under what circumstances it runs because neither Process Hacker 2 or AutoRuns show anything other than the main PDN.exe running when you boot the program.
  23. I doubt it is this but MS .NET Framework was updated earlier this week as part of the regular monthly, in this case February 2019, "Patch Tuesday" updates. So I'd check if that was auto-updated on your system yesterday. I did a search for any reported problems before I updated and have done another quick one just now but found no post about anything so far. What I can confirm is that the most recent PDN works fine on a Win7 64bit PC with that new update but, of course, it may be a different matter for other Windows versions.
  24. I'll add my appreciation too. I assume they all have to be done from a blank canvas but whatever the case I'd no idea you could do complex looking graphics quite as impressive as all of those just using PDN.
  25. https://www.pvladov.com/2013/10/increase-intel-hd-graphics-dedicated-video-memory.html?m=1