cjordan

It does kinda. Thanks! But I think I'd had my ah-ha moment a bit ago, when I realized that you weren't talking about having both the frame and the cushion be transparent, but just the bit that has the most choice options. So in the case of the example site I posted, they've got only 21 "chair images" and each one has the frame filled in already, but the cushion is transparent. Then they just have to have a single image for each cushion fabric. Put the chosen frame image on top of the chosen fabric image, and the cushion is the only bit that allows the fabric image to show through. Right? I actually, don't think that's what the site I pointed to as an example is doing, because when I use the Firefox Web Developer extension to view all the images I get a single jpg that shows the frame/cushion combination I chose, and not a frame image with the cushion transparent, etc. etc. But I don't see why this idea wouldn't work. Thoughts?

Okay, so after re-reading Simon's post and Carl's response. I think I had an Ah-ha moment about what he's talking about. I decided to edit my last post rather than create another one. NOW, I think you guys are telling me that I would have a single image for each chair with the frame filled in appropriately, and the cushion as the transparent bit. Then I would show an image that matched the frame they chose over the top of an image of the fabric they chose. Sound about right? Thanks heaps again... ----- original response ----- Simon, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm thinking about what you said, but I'm not sure how that would work (not the JS part, that I can do), but how to create the image such that this scheme would work. Do you think you could explain your idea a bit further, and assume I'm an idiot when it comes to the graphical stuff -- which isn't quite true, but it's close :wink: I understand the concept of making part of an image transparent such that whatever is behind it would show through, but how would that work in this case? I mean, to keep using the chair as an example, the entire thing would be transparent. The frame and the cushion. How would I keep part of the cushion overlay from "bleeding" into the frame bit? Damn, that's not coming out right. I don't think I'm explaining my confusion effectively, but maybe if you can just expand on your idea for me, my confusion will go away. :? Also, to anyone else reading this, I'm open to other ideas of how to get these images made. I'm not adverse to the idea of having to have a separate image for each possible combination, but want to know how I would *most easily* go about creating those images. I just saw atypicalcarl's post while I was writing this one. My problem is *not* with the JavaScript and CSS, or with how to display the images or with the zooming. My problem is how to create the images in the first place. That's why I'm posting this question to a group of graphically inclined folks who probably know lots more about image manipulation than I do. Thanks, heaps!

Sorry for the lame subject of this post, but I'm not an imaging guru by any stretch. I just figured that someone here would know how to do what it is that I'm trying to do. I'm looking at a website that has a custom design tool (http://www.brownjordan.com/econfig/inde ... cutta%20II). It shows a piece of furnature (a chair in the case of the link above) and the manufacturer has all sorts of fabrics that can be used for the cushion of the chair and several colors or textures that can be used for the frame of the chair. Now, it's not too difficult to see that they've got an image for each possible combination of cushion fabric and frame color, and how they know which image to show. My question is about creating ALL of those images (in the case of the link above 2,457 images). They're not being generated on the fly I'm pretty sure, but I don't know *how* they were generated. Is this something that PDN could do? is it just a careful selection and bucket fill? If it's a bucket fill, how exactly do you fill something that isn't a solid color, but is rather a pattern (for the sake of argument let's say paisley or something) that matches exactly a specific textile that my client can apply to the cushion of a chair. Can anyone help me on how this sort of image is created? Can PDN do the job? Would I *really* have to create each and every image by hand? Thanks.

ROFL! I'll do that... good suggestion. BTW, MadJik *was* gracious enough to shoot me a copy of the water dll that he thinks will work with v.2.72. Many thanks to the admins and other folks in the forum for letting me bend the rules to find what I needed.

lol!

That's kinda what I thought, but I still appreciate Crazy Man Dan's effort.

Well, that sorta explains stuff for me. I appreciate the effort. I've got a PM waiting. Fingers crossed that it's MadJik with some good news. :wink:

If you do decide to try out The GIMP: Note that the new version of The GIMP (2.4.x) is also WinXP+ only. The GIMP guys do keep a repository of old versions on their GIMP-Win download site here: http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/old.html 2.2.17 is the most recent version Windows 2000 will run. You'll also need the download package for the GTK+ library version 2.10.13 from the same page. The GTK+ package needs to be installed before the GIMP install proper. Thanks heaps Crazy Man Dan! I appreciate the help here too. I think I'll try PM'ing Madjik first. Maybe if he's got an old copy -- and he doesn't think I'm a complete jerk from reading my posts -- he can help me out. Also, I really *would* love to know the technical reason that the latest versions of PDN won't run on win2k... but that's not really important I guess. Thanks again, Chris

That's all I was hoping for. But I didn't know who to contact. Now I do. But if not for my persistence, I'd not have gotten that piece of information. I think perhaps my perception is a result of the condescending tone of the rules and the speed with which all of my topics got shut down. And the attitude that I'm not allowed to ask a question unless I'm on the latest version. I understand that this is community supported software, so let the community decide which questions they'll try to answer and which ones they won't. So if a user is on 3.01 and the most recent version is 3.10 then, of course, they should upgrade, because they're able to do so. But if someone is still running 2.72 it's probably because they can't upgrade. So, those folks are just out of luck. They're not even allowed to see if anyone remembers how to do something in that version, or -- as in my case -- just find out if anyone has an older copy of a dll out there that they can shoot over to them. I can understand if no body responds to such a post, but to not even allow the question to be asked is just sort of nuts sounding to me. That's why we encourage people to read The Rules first. Even if I had read the rules first, I'd still have asked my question. After all, where else can I go to find a large group of Paint.Net users to ask my question? What harm is there in asking a simple question? First of all, it's community supported software so what's official about it? It's up to the individual reading a post to decide if they're going to take time out of their day to answer a poster's question. If they remember something from a previous version, then great! If not, they probably wouldn't answer anyway, and the thread would just die. That's kind of how the community support model works (at least in my experience of supporting other open source projects). Second, are you're telling me that you remove all old threads that pertain to a particular version once it's no longer supported? If that's the case -- and that seems like a lot of work -- then lock them all and move them into an archive forum. Then when people ask for tutorials on how to do xyz with some older version point them to that forum. Also, -- and I think I said this before -- i'm not suggesting that you need to support all versions of the application, just two really: The latest one, and the last one to which folks running windows 2000 can possibly upgrade. And even then I'm not suggesting that you have to support anything -- and by 'you' here I mean the community, not you personally. Nobody has to support anything. It's the community answering questions out of the kindness of their hearts and in hopes that as they help educate folks those same people will turn around and help to educate more newcomers. @Rick Yeah, I read that. That scenario is easily avoided by the person answering the question asking what version the user is using prior to trying to offer any further help. If they're on 3.01 and the latest is 3.10 then the first suggestion is to upgrade. When the user replies, "I'm on 2.72 because I can't upgrade any farther..." then the user who's trying to help, can say, "Sorry, I can't help you. I don't remember enough about that version." or "Oh, yeah I remember when I was on that version, I think you do something like..." Anyway, -- and this is not to browbeat you -- I think the argument stated in the rules is a bit of a cop-out. I appreciate that. I really do. Thanks for saying it though. Okay, well... respond to my comments if you like. I'm not expecting to change any minds here (though that would be cool if I did :wink: ) I will definitely ask Madjik if he's got an old copy of his dll that would work with 2.72 laying about somewhere and if he'd mind sharing it with me. That may be the best I can hope for, and if so... well, that's open source for you, and I'm completely okay with that. @david: Thanks again for the kind words and feelin' my pain. I hope that Madjik can help me too. I don't really even need support for the thing, I know how to use it... I used to have it, I just lost it. Thanks guys, I'm sorry if I've been a bit of a pain in the butt, and I appreciate you not shutting this thread down quite so quickly. :wink:

Interesting, there's a little black spot next to all of the topics I've posted in. I don't see a definition of that icon at the bottom of the page. I'm guessing this is like being blackballed? I feel like a subversive. Geesh. :shock:

... before my topic got locked... for what it's worth here's what I was going to say in my last post in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=21630, (this was to be my response to david.atwell)... I just finished reading the rules while waiting for a reply (to the topic which is now locked). So this post is probably a no-no (guess I was right, it's since it is now locked). Seems pretty elitist if you ask me, but what do I know? It seems to me they could easily make a section of the forum dedicated to us poor sods who are being left in the dust due to circumstances out of our control. Also, if I could get my boss to upgrade to a more recent version of windows, then I could probably also get him to buy me Photo Shop. That's not intended as a slam on Paint.Net that's just the way it is. I really like PDN. I wonder, what the reasoning is behind not supporting windows 2000. I'm sure it's a good one, I'd just feel better if I knew what it was, rather than the rules just telling me not to ask because it's not going to happen. I *would* understand a nice technical explanation, but whoever wrote the rules just assumes I'm too stupid to understand. Anyway, I'm feeling quite left out now. I'd like to be enjoying all the fun, but I can't and I get smacked down by the lead developer guy just for mentioning it in another post (been smacked down twice now). I'm *not* looking for making any kind of supported archive, I'm just looking for anyone who may have an eight-track tape lying around that I can use with my tired old eight-track player. Well, that was my response. I came to this forum hopeful, that someone could help me, but all I found was middle finger waiting for me (not you david.atwell), and now I've got a sour taste in my mouth for this forum (and perhaps for the project... we'll see how I feel later). I'm sure this topic will be locked as well or perhaps deleted, by some moderator. At this rate that wouldn't surprise me. Thanks for at least trying to help me david.atwell. I hope you don't get in trouble for talking to a second-class PDN user. :wink: Cheers, Chris

Hi folks, I'm in a bit of a bind. I'm only able to use up to version 2.72 of Paint.Net (since, we don't have anything beyond Windows 2000 here at work), and I'm looking to find a copy of water.dll that will work with this version. If anyone has an old copy lying around that they could shoot me in an email or something that'd be great, and it would really help me out. Cheers, Chris

I cannot run the most current version of paint.net. I can only run upto version 2.72 (I think that's where it stopped working on windows 2000) since that's all we have at work. So, yes there is a legitimate reason to need to run older versions of the plug-ins, and older versions of the paint.net itself. Do you really think someone wouldn't upgrade if they could? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Chris