Westrock

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Westrock

  1. Had my wife take a picture of my while driving Original It was raining at the time, but the camera failed to pick up any of the clouds...so a perusing on Yahoo! images found me some good clouds to composite into the image. Balanced out the image much better. Modified Its my desktop at work now (1280x1024) PS, I use Paint.NET for mostly photo editing, you guys that actually "create" images are pretty talanted!
  2. I also second this feature...especially the way MS Paint does it where you have like 5 different depth options. Its convient when your working with limited colors and are looking for a certain file size vs picture quality vs compatibilty.
  3. As far as those two images, I have found that darker images almost always take up more space when working with the same dimensions and compression quality.
  4. I just got a Wacom Graphire 6x8. Is there any way to implement the Eraser function in Paint.NET? Not a big deal. Also does the "intensity" of pushing the pen have any effect in Paint.NET?
  5. You said that the Acquire feature is calling an external application, but would it be at all possible to make saved "user profiles" available on the document type screen? My scanner needs a little tweaking for each of the different kinds of pictures (color photo, B&W text, etc) and I always forget the values I used and have to do some tweaking to get the right settings each time. I expect that you will say no because its not actually Paint.NET thats doing the scanning...but your smart and may have some trick.
  6. May or may not, but thought I would point it out. Or may just be part of Windows UI. If I position the Layer Window to where its slightly out of bounds of the window it causes the curser to flash. If you click the mouse in between the flashes the button your trying to press won't activate. I made a video, because its kind of hard to explain. Video
  7. I've never been big on scanners and they've always been awkward in the past when I tried to use them (like TWAIN driver days). However recently I have had some situations where I needed to get some hard documents on the interwebs and I remembered Rick mentioning the Acquire feature. It works perfect and I like the basic options available. Plus it opens directly in Paint.NET which is exactly what I would want. So thank you guys for rekindeling my respect for scanners.
  8. OK, I just wanted to make sure everything was OK on my end. It just seems like it use to be a little faster back when I was using 2.x.
  9. Whenever I'm editing larger pictures (like 1800x1200 and up) when I use the Lasso to add to a selection its pretty slow, but when I take away a selection its pretty quick. When I draw the initial selection with the Lasso its very quick. This is on both my laptop and my main computer. My Laptop I can understand (1.8Ghz Turion64). My main computer is a AMD X2 4600 and if I bring up Task Manager while Lasso is sitting there updating the CPU Utilization only hits like 50% and really one of them is running at like 60%, and the other is maybe 10%-20%. Memory is 1.5Gb DDR2. Heres a screenshot to show. Down by the bottom is where it was still drawning the line while I had time to bring up Task Manager and hit PRNT SCRN. Is this normal behavior, due to the way the selection works or something?
  10. I've had a Canon S3-IS for about 3 months and I really like it. They are about $380 from Newegg. I bought a 2Gb SD card at the same time for $30 and I have since bought a lens adaptor and a polarizer lens (about $100 together) which has made the camera even better. That Fuji one did look pretty good too. I probably would still have gone with the S3 though just because has a couple "upgrades" here and there in the specs. The thing eats batteries though when I use the LCD all the time...or forget to turn it off after transferring pictures
  11. $1000 is historically the acceptable price for "the best" processor. And if your real proud like AMD was of their FX processors you can even get away with $1200 or so. If your just messing with desktop pictures and stuff (like 800x600 and smaller) you probably won't see a huge difference going to a faster processor. But I'm editing just 6MP pictures (2816x2112) and going to a dual core made a huge difference in render speeds. I can only imagine how relieved D-SLR guys (7-10MP) would be. Plus its nice being able to install stuff in the background and still be able to surf comfortably or not have music/movies get jerky. Also I don't if I mentioned this earlier, but my work manufactures the Sun Sparc T1 processors (we call them Niagras at work) and they are already using 8 cores. I don't know what Sun charges for these monsters, but I think we charge SUN around $1000 each, so I can only imagine what they charge the final customer. But we a couple dozen of there blades and I think they are about $10K a pop.
  12. OK, thanks! Thats pretty much what I was thinking. For static resizing I just tweak it and leave it, but the for image resize I undo and start over....just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing it wrong. Also as a side note, does Paint.NET do as much as possible strictly in memory and not rely on the harddrive? For example often times I have PDN taking up 50-100Mb of memory. I just want to know if the speed of the HDD has any effect once the image has been loaded.
  13. I was just wondering how does Paint.NET resize images when using the Move Selected Pixels. If I scale a selection down to 50%, but then scale back up to 60% of the original does it scale the original by 50%, but then when I go up does it take the current image and scale it 120% or take the orignal source and rescale it to 60%? Same with Resize.... If I scale a 1600x1200 image down to 1024x768 but then decide 1280x960 is better, does up scale the 1024x768 or rescale the 1600x1200? Hope thats confusing enough!
  14. Doing better then when I started using it...I couldn't even move a selection correctly :oops: I got betta though....
  15. A work around I have found is to right click on the other picture and choose Open With > Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. Although there have been very few times I have needed to do that its usually when I need to look at the original and make sure my blendings look believeable or to see how much the color actually changed. But Windows Image Viewer is low profile enough that you can open it real quick and drag it over Paint.NET to compare. Plus it will auto-size for you (unlike MS Paint).
  16. You can also select the item that you wish to affect, such as using the magic wand and getting just the object you wish to alter. Then do Ctrl-C on the layer you want to grab the pixels from. Create a new layer thats above the background layer and do Ctrl-V to paste the pixels. Now you have a copy of just what you want to alter, so you don't have to worry about other parts of the picture being affected.
  17. When I select a small area, maybe 20x20 pixels and want to move it, how do it get the hand to switch to an arrow? In other words, the selection is so small that I can only stretch or rotate the selection because the "middle" area isn't big enough for the selection pointer to turn into the movement arrow.
  18. Well my guess is that when Vista starts to support certain features that just aren't compatible with WinXP. Perhaps somewhere down the line DirectX10 (or 11) will add some excellent built-in features that will provide lots of use and WinXP just won't be able to provide that (right DX10 won't be released for WinXP??). So rather than have to seperate products and trying to make the older program emulate the newer one, its easiest to just have one product. Thats my understanding of whats happening with 3.0 (as far as Win2K support). Paint.NET will still work, you just won't have the next newest features.
  19. Heres another one I did at work last night. (those are not actual Athlon64's in the background, just a random wafer we had lying around). Its the sticker that came with my processor. I went through and got rid of the dust and stuff. Solidified the black and white areas. Got rid of the yellow banding where the white and black met. Lots of gaussian Added a little more pop to the green arrow thing. This was with Super Macro mode on my S3-IS. Obviously the lens isn't quite what an SLR could have as the focused area is kind of narrow. PS: if you'd like a different size for a wallpaper let me know. The original is 2805x1713, so I could even do a native 30" background with this :shock:
  20. Winzip used to have a counter on it where it would tell you how many days you have been using the "trial", I think I got it up to like 700 something days once. Yet another reason poeple should upgrade to WindowsXP....zip is built-in, always used to forget to install Winzip in Win2K.
  21. Well as far as hacking to have an edge on say something like Xbox Live or something, ya I think thats just plain stupid and cheating for sure. But I remember when I was younger and video games were far simpler and a null modem was about as far as multiplayer went, I remember it was very fun and challanging to sit there with a hex editor and a saved game file and try to figure where the money value was or something. Most of the time nothing would happen, sometimes the game would crash and occasionally you would get $65535 :wink: The first computer game I ever bought was this game called Populous, it was kind of a Command & Conquer type game, but came out far before C&C. Anyways the way the game "saved" your character was by giving you this 20 character or so code that was alphanumeric. And you would type in the code later on to reload your character. Well as a young kid I discovered that by typing different codes you could get different profiles. So I would sit there and and type in random codes and right down what stats I got, until I found one that suited what I needed for the particular level. And I got to tell you I was very proud of my findings. Now that is kind of cheating, but just to have fun, not to hurt others. It was kind of like the Doom editors that could let you shoot like rockets out of the machine gun, or shoot bad guys out of a gun....fun stuff.
  22. My company manufactures the Sun Sparc processors, and they are using 8 cores :shock: Though Solaris and the Blades annoy me sometimes.
  23. And I just wanted to say that I (and probably others in this thread and other around the net) are not praising the Core 2 Duo because were Intel Fanboys. I haven't owned an Intel since the Pentium Classic 166Mhz was a current processor. However in all my years I do not think I have seen a processor mop the floor like the C2D's have. Now for the last 4-5 years it hasn't been any secret that AMD chips were usually more efficient and often did better at video game performance, however there was almost always at least 2 or 3 benchmarks that the Intels usually did better at (usually server stuff, scientific, number crunching, etc). So there was always room for either side to say "hey look ours is better". However with the C2D, they simply dominate every single test. I can't think of one single benchmark where stock for stock the best C2D (E6800??) gets beat by anything else, and when you take into account they overclock extremely well, they are almost unstoppable. Admittingly I have probably been an AMD fanboy for many years, and starting about 2 months ago I completely started recommending the Core 2 Duo. Its honestly and inarguably the best processor on the market right now. Even the last couple dual cores weren't as sensational as these have been. The Athlon64 X2's were a great step, but they were expensive and the low end could actually be beaten by several of the higher end single core Athlon64's. The Pentium D's were dirt cheap, but performance wasn't all that great compared to most single core Athlon64's, plus they ran very hot. Suddenly the C2D's come out, they run fairly cool, performance is stellar, price is very fair, and they are conservatively clocked....its win/win.
  24. As far as processors I would recommend a Core 2 Duo of any kind. They simply can't be beat at the moment when it comes to performance and $$$ (and I'm 100% serious). You can see in this chart that Core 2 Duo's dominate pretty much everything. With that being said, I recently upgraded from an AthlonXP to a Athlon64 X2. I wanted to go with a Core 2 Duo, but Fry's had an excellent deal where I pretty much bought the processor and got the motherboard for free. So since I was going to have to buy a new video card and memory anyways, saving $100 on a motherboard was a good incentive. So I got a socket AM2 Athlon64 X2 4600. The older Intels, up until the C2D, were really pigs. AMD's were better overall, unless you were using certain applications that Pentiums could do better. Even the recent dual core Pentium D's weren't that much faster than some of the single core Athlon64's. The Pentiums were also power hogs and would get hot (which meant bigger heatsinks and bigger power supplies). Now whatever brand you go with I would strongly urge you to stick with dual cores, either the Athlon64 X2 or the Core 2 Duo's. I noticed a huge difference when upgrading from the AthlonXP to the X2, especially when working with 6 megapixel pictures coming off my camera in Paint.NET. My laptop has a Turion64 which is basically a lower heat version of a Athlon64, its a 1.8Ghz. I still have to resize pictures down to like 1600x1200 or smaller if want Paint.NET to be somewhat responsive (like updating the picture as I adjust sliders). Get 1GB of memory minimum. Paint.NET, Internet Explorer, and such can easily use 50-100MB of memory per instance, so 512MB is really too small nowadays. I have 1.25GB in my laptop and 1.5GB in my house computer...its seems to be enough for what I do (Vista may change that down the road though). As far as video cards, if you only plan on using Paint.NET and the like, then you don't need anything too crazy. My computer at home just has a nVidia 6600 (256MB) in it and it does just fine for desktop usage. Now if you plan on gameing then ya you might want to look at something like a ATI X1800 or nVidia 7900. Also if you plan on getting a really big monitor like the Apple or Dell 30" LCD, then you will need a video card with a dual link DVI (not to be confused with a video card that just has 2 DVI ports). Single link DVI is good up to about 1920x1200 (usually 24" monitors) where as the dual links can provide the 2560x1600 of the 30" LCD's. I think all the ATI X1 series (X1300, X1600, X1800) have dual link and maybe all the nVidia 7 series have it. For most all my computer purchases I use either Fry's locally or NewEgg online. NewEgg has awsome prices and deals, Fry's is local and can put it my hands on days when I wake up and say "You know what I need a new harddrive today"
  25. Just be cautious, as depending on how involved your background is it can eat up system resources like crazy.