RejZoR

Ever heard of word "consistency" or "design consistency"? You should look it up. If entire interface is off center to the left the exact same way, your centered text will look weird, not the other way around.

So, if it's not an icon and it actually uses an icon/image to display in the tile, what's the problem then? Just fix the medium sized icon and call it a day instead of going all defensive attacking the person who just gave you feedback on how to improve the product... Took me 10 seconds to make a fixed image for the Medium Tile in Paint.NET itself. Calibri font, size 10. No one can even tell a difference and it's not even the exact same font as the rest. Other size tiles look fine as they pull the Netflix icon effect of looking fine, but the Medium one is just bad. It would work better even if it was just a white tile with the larger Paint.NET icon spliced into it without any text underneath.

I've been using Paint.NET for ages and I love it. So, I've decided to support the developer and bought it on Microsoft Store. All fine except the font on the Paint.NET icon is now inconsistent compared to all others (when I was using the free one it wasn't!). The font is different, larger and aligned differently. Some may complain it's nothing to complain about, but it's REALLY annoying. Imagine having a car that's perfect, but the driver door handle is slightly larger, under an angle and placed in the middle of the door for absolutely no logical reason. That's how this feels. And given I use Paint.NET a lot, looking and clicking this abomination is really annoying. Can anything be done to fix the consistency? I want "Paint.NET" text to be like with every single other app in my Start menu (as you can see from the attached screenshot). And given I didn't have this issue when using a free one, I think it's even more important to address this in the paid version.

Ok, though that's a really stupid design choice. You got 3 actions, X and Y axis and clock rotation. Why the hell are they depending on each for a single action?

I'm almost 100% sure it was possible to rotate layers to the left side in older versions, but in Paint.NET, I can only rotate them to the right (perspective). Which is just silly. Why is slider by default placed all the way on the left instead of in the middle so you can rotate the layer left or right for 90°? I wouldn't have noticed this, but I had to align a text to an angled scene and I couldn't allign it because the slider didn't allow me.

Yeah, but soften just adds extra pixels, it doesn't really take lines into account. End result is just a blurry mess. If that's the case i'm better off resizing image to a massive resolution and then scaling it back to a desired resolution.

I'd prefer something simple and almost fully automated. Fiddling with layers and several efffects on top of eachother kinda spoils the purpose...

Unfortunately i can't seem to find anything useful for this task. Some plugins are very useful, but nothing i'm looking for here.

You probably know what Morphological filtering is. If you don't, here is an example: http://www.geeks3d.com/20101023/tips-what-is-the-morphological-anti-aliasing-mlaa/ It basically filters any jaggies on a bitmap image. Is there any existing plugin for Paint.NET or are maybe there any plans for such thing? I'd need it to filter out some images made in MS Paint using simple lines. But they are very jaggy and using any other method didn't really give me any decent results.

It's not the same even for scaling because when you do it it looks weird, but here it doesn't. Besides, the whole point of it is being automated. I can make everything Photoshop can using MS paint, but it would take few weeks to get the results, so why bother right, if it can be automated?

LINKS: http://chathuraw.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/photoshop-cs5-content-aware-fill-vs-gimp-resynthesizer/ http://www.blender3darchitect.com/2010/04/more-free-photoshop-with-content-aware-scale-with-the-gimp/ I've seen these two today and both features are just mind blowing. I could use these almost daily and doing by hand takes ages where these specialized filters perform the given task in seconds with near perfection. But Photoshop is a bit too expensive and i never really liked GIMP for some reason. However i do like Paint.NET a lot (my primary image editor on all my systems) and would really like to see these features in Paint.NET. Is there any chance we could see these features anytime soon?

But can't you place it after you select image quality, not before? I can hardly believe that this cannot be done?

I'm using Paint.NET pretty much ever it was first released to public and i just love it. Small, powerful, simple and free. But the "Save as..." dialog was getting on my nerves for quite some time now. The thing is, it works for what it was designed, the problem is that it doesn't work too well when your target is to get the best image quality at the smallest size. Sometimes JPEG creates the smallest file, other time its PNG. But you can't know that until you actually chose one filetype and then you get to the preview screen where you see the resulting file size and quality. And if you don't like it you have to repeat the whole proces of going into the File dropdown menu and selecting "Save as..." again. Couldn't it be done in a way that "Save as..." dialog would contain all 4 features. Preview, file size, file type and save destination in the same dialog? So you can quickly switch between for example PNG or JPEG and see which produces the best results and when you see which one is the best you hit the Save button. Which makes image editing light years faster than if you have to open the dialog over and over again from scratch just to see which format creates the smallest file. Or having the Save destination being selected after you pick the image format and settings, not before it like it is now.

I'm wondering if there is any chance we'll ever see resampling method similar to S-Spline (or some form of it in your implimentation, though it might be problematic because it's patented as far as i remember), Supersampling (as selectable mode not just when in Auto) and very high quality Lanczos methods? Bicubic is good but Lanczos would certanly be nice as an extra option.

There's nothing wrong with Microsoft algorithms. JPEG XR is very promising and will really shine when digital cameras start supporting it. Btw, Rhyelys, thats probably result of algorithm used by JPEG XR. Considering you're using quality level 1 (lowest). JPEG shows similar blocky bloody potato at such quality (which no one uses anyway because it's useless).

Ok, i know there is a "Red eye removal" feature, but i'd need something more, more like "Colored eye removal" feature. The thing is, i have a very nice puppy (westie) and whenever i take a picture of her i get blue/white glowing eyes (pretty much like red eyes for humans, just in bright white/blue colors). Any way to extend "red eye removal" to cover also other colors not just red? See the example image below... Maybe like Color picker in combination with Red eye removal. First you pick a color from eye and then adjust parametrs to remove specific color range. Would that be possible and actually useful? I'd really want to get rid of these glowing eyes because puppies are much more cute if they have black eyes on photos.

So they aren't loaded twice possibly resulting in problems...

I'm talking about practical usage for real life HD photos. I think anyone would expect HD Photo format to persist the quality of originally taken photo from high quality digital camera while decreasing the size significantly. They advertise it as such after all... I get none of it and using lossy option just to decrease size is not an option since you have to go so low, it gets full of artifacts already.

So what's the point of HD Photo format? Honestly it's better to compress the photos with 7-zip (LZMA) and you actually decrease size without losing any info (small but at least it is). I'll just keep my HD photos in original JPEG state. Quality will be top notch while still miles smaller than HD Photo format...

Hm, what's so wonderful about it? Looks like was expecting something more impressive. A 10Mpix photo (3648x2736) taken by Olympus E-400 at SHQ quality (and lowest possible compression ratio) takes 6,84 MB in default JPEG state. Compressing it with wonderful HD Photo thingie INCREASES the size to 10,5 MB. Sorry, i don't see any practical use in this. I expected it to losslessly compress the image at least down to 2,5-3MB, not to increase it. So in the end it's only useful with smaller images and low encoding rates. I can't see how word "HD" fits in there. Is resolution 3648x2736 not HD enough? Huh... Still nice work on the plugin...

I've checked the forum but couldn't really find any info on this. I just got hands on some kick < no swearing > DSLR camera and when i transfered data to PC, i noticed RAW format isn't supported by default. And since Paint.NET is my primary tool for everything i'm wondering if there is already a way to open such files or if thats not possible, will there be any support for RAW images?

Well JPEG is imo obsolete so it would be a smart move to support something new. PNG is very kewl, but it's compression algorithm isn't the best. Even though it's lossless...

Good to hear PDN will support it (since i don't have and want Photoshop). HD Photo standard is completelly open and it looks very promising.

Looks good. Some minor glitches here and there but looks great. Multi-tab and selectable presetable palette is also kewl (was waiting for this quiet some time now ) Any chance to see supersampling as forcable selectable option under resize tool ? For some effects you just need supersampling...

I'm recommending Paint.NET to all users everywhere. I also have to small banners on my both webpages that point to Paint.NET webpage (some parts of page were edited with PDN.