sagedavis
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sagedavis
-
-
Hi all,
I noticed on the plugins page that some plugins have a note at the top that says "this plugin has been added to the latest version of PDN" or something to that effect.
Is it safe to assume that any and all plugins that do not have this blurb are ok to download?
If I accidently download one that is already in PDN will it in anyway cause any conflict due to non-unique naming or anything like that?
Thanks
Sage
-
This is great,
I tried it out, mine didn't come out too good. I'll keep trying, but, I would add an aditional step.
You can give a sort of fake refraction (I think that's the word I am looking for), but, using the trick to select the area of the water drop again, and then move down to the background layer.
Click on "layers > Rotate and zoom".
Put your rotation angles to 0... cause all you want to do here is just zoom to about 1.06.
This is such a great tutorial.
Thanks for it.
Sage
-
Bolt,
at first I was a bit disappointed in this because I assumed it was something else. Like feathered edges that look like when you scratch the edges of a photo.
Then I realized what it does. It's pretty good, and I see many issues with images that are not antialiased, or whatever, and having too much pixelation. This is great for smoothing them out.
Keep up the good work.
I would still like to find an effect that makes that sort of scratch look that I am looking for though.
Thanks
Sage
-
I use notepad as well.
Problem with editors such as microsoft, is that coding will be optimized for Internet Explorer, and some "effects" or tags, may not show up the same in Netscape.
These are the two most widely used browsers (although firefox is really starting to come up in the world).
Actually, this may not be the case these days as far as the mythilogical browser wars go, as I have been programming since 2000, so, perhaps there have been changes in browser tag acceptance, not sure, but, by doing everything by hand, I have a much easier time since I know what works in the major browsers.
Also, you will find that most web development GUI applications add a LOT of mettadata (metta tags) that are useless to you, as well as the fact that, instead of using actual .css sheets (external), they use case by case styles, as well as manipulating all fonts within the font tag itself.
Too many characters (in my opinion), which leads to longer DL times.
Of course, this is just my personal pref, but, I have been called on to turn many a static HTML page into a dynamic PHP setup and refused because, I don't feel like reading through all of the code spit out by Dream Weaver and other applications.
Sage
-
Bark,
Well, yes, Raw is uncompressed...
no, it's not going to change anything, BUT... when you work with uncompressed (anything, video, sound, images), resizing and remastering, CAN (at times), make the final image come out better than working with a compressed file.
This especially can work (with image) when you have antialiasing enabled (still haven't tested the AA in paint.net yet).
The point is that working with a compressed file type will force any paint/image program to "predict" what the image will then look like compressed.
You then further have the option of saving as a less "lossy" format such as TIFF, rather than JPG, and your image might actually come out somewhat better.
It all depends on how badly distorted the origional image is.
I do the same type of thing with my music and avi files.
If they had been mp3 or avi previously, I convert them to an uncompressed format first and then work with editing them. In these arenas, the quality does in fact come out much better than if I worked directly with the lossy format, and I would assume the same could hold true of imaging, for the same logic.
I don't expect for you to get any image to come out 20 times better, but, there will most likely be some noticable differences.
Perhaps if you post one of the images, someone would be able to help you a little bit better?
Sage
-
Are you refering to something like "solar Flare" similar to Photoshop and Paintshop?
I have been looking for a way to do them as well and I am not getting anywhere near close to the effect I am looking for,
If there's a plugin for it, I can't find it.
Sage
-
Ok,
Check out my sig now.
What I have done here was to add a new layer.
Created a white stripe and used blurring.
This gave the "shine" a sort of a round look.
You can add transparency to give it a cleaner more realistic look.
Take a look in the tutorial section and check out the "glass buttons" tutorial. It gives a different way of achieving the effect.
Sage
-
How far away were you?
I am assuming that your camer is digital.
Your best bet really is to shell out a couple hundred bucks on a camera with at least a 10 (higher if you can get it) OPTICAL zoom.
Where people get into trouble is that the cameras they buy may magnify "up to 60 times", but digital zoom is really crummy.
With a 12 Optical zoom, you could probably get a good picture of a person from at least a football field away (Of course, this would have to be excellent lighting conditions).
Night time images may come out grainy from far away.
you really have to play around with the image though, try converting it to raw format and then working from it you might get better results.
Sage
-
Engraved glass where the writting looks like stone?
I sort of don't get that. I do glass engravings. it doesn't look like stone, it looks more like white powder.
If that is the effect that you are going for then.
Create a new layer.
Select the "A" (text tool), and you will notice up toward the top where you can pic your font, over to the right you will notice a drop down box that says "solid color"... You want to select "percent 70"
Now, using a white color, type in the text that you want to use.
Next you want to use the Blur effects Gaussian.
I tried about 5 px, on mine with an arial text at 26, but, you will need to play around with the Gaussian numbers to suite you best.
Next, you will want to decrease the layer's opacity a little bit so that you can sort of see a little bit through it...
That's the basis of etching.
I am not sure how to do the glass effect yet, maybe someone else can help you with that.
Sage
-
Um, I need to correct my statement... LOL
I meant to say 75 or 80 percent, OF what it is, not less than what it is... that would only leave you with 200 px (give or take), areas...
I just now reread what I wrote, color me embarassed.
But I am sure you knew what I meant.
Well, oh yeah, if all the pages are going to match the main page, then yeah that is perfect.
Great style CMD...
Laters.
Sage
-
These are all great responses.
Thanks.
Ok, so 2 years, that's actually not that long a way in the grand scheme of things.
I will check out irfanview in the meantime.
PDN rocks hard though. It's such an easy to use interface. I mean, I have a short wishlist of effects that I would like, but, overall, it's fantastic.
Kudos to the programmer(s).
Sage
EDIT:
Ok, I just checked out irfanview's batch processing. And WOW. I like it better than Paint Shop Pro's batch. I can easily just say what I want to resize to. I am all about an easy to use interface and this really is a great way to not have to go to my friend's house to work.
Good stuff, thanks again.
Sage
-
LOL.. OK then...
Great job CMD...
Thanks for the check, I must admit that I am catching up on the shows I missed on Tivo, while reading the posts here, so, I might have missed that in this post somewhere. LOL
"Giving credit where it's do, there are worst things you can do, but it's also quite clear..."
Anyway, either way, it's fantastic work...
And thanks for the correction Illnab
Sage
-
I am new to paint.net, both the program and the forum, but not to forums in general.
I used the search function here to look up "Batch Processing", and recieved a whole bunch of unrelated posts.
So, I decided to post a question here about it.
A friend of mine has Paint Shop Pro on his computer, and I do a lot of work which requires me to do the same tasks to hundreds of photos, so, as I time saver, I end up going to his house to batch process off of his PSP.
These processes are generally things like resizing, or adding a watermark logo, and so on.
I do not see a way to do this in Paint.net, and I have no clue if a plugin to do so could even possibly be created.
Can anyone tell me if maybe there is a batch process under my nose that I am missing? or, if there is a possibility that future releases will include it?
PSP allows you to record your action and then save it as a process. I like that, and would like something similar, in Paint.net so that I don't have to go to my friends house every time I want to do a batch process.
Thanks
Sage
-
Bolt,
As a Pro Web Designer, I got to say, I like the way the site is looking.
I would make 1 small suggestion.
On your content pages I would make the width about 75 or 80 percent less than it is, forcing the text to wrap.
I tell my clients all the time, that people don't mind scrolling down, but they do mind if a line of text, looks too long.
While you have used a larger font (many Kudos for that), the lines of text still appear long.
Also, tightening the width up a bit will give a more organized Pro look. Actually, I should say, more professional, because, it already looks pretty pro.
That's just my opinion. Everything else is REALLY GOOD.
Great layout, great color usage and the graphics are put together very well.
Sage
Make an Animated .GIF with Paint.NET
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Boo,
Morphing is one way.
using a slight blur (possibly motion blur) on your moving item could add a bit to the realism.
Here's what you need to know.
Movies (avi) are usually formatted to 24 (really 23.9) or 30 frames per second (FPS), for normal scenes, depending on the amount of detail that is needed, also depending on the target dvd player (PAL or NTSC).
For realistic motion in a gif, you would need about the same. You could probably get away with 20 FPS though, and possibly even 15 (depending on the amount of detail you require).
which means, at a minimum, you are going to need 15 images for a 1 second segment of a gif.
If you don't have that kind of time on your hands, you may need to go with a morph program of some sort. I am not really familiar with morph programs, so, I couldn't help you there, but, your kind of stuck with makeing a lot of images for a smoother look, without one.
Sage