EternalNY1

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rick, are you new to software engineering? Last I heard this is the official slogan! "Ok, so you are running [hardware] but have [setting] disabled, on [some] operating system that is [some number of] patches behind, and when you [do some esoteric thing] an [extremely rare, never seen before] error code is appearing? Did you manually disabled [this service that has no documentation but somehow is necessary]?" Then it turns out it's a [bug/feature/security fix] in [somebody's] [driver/compiler/wallpaper/bluetooth/other thing]! Great work with the new version! All of my specific issues are completely resolved (the major one esp. ... "overscrolling overscroll"). Keep at it, as much as your time allows. I remember having that drive back in '04 when this launched ... but 12 years later, still staring at a sea of code for a living, I'm not sure I could do it! I use it all the time, and hope it keeps moving forward.
  2. Thanks everyone, I appreciate the feedback. I'm going to grab those plugins (which I somehow apparently missed). Eli - That example is actually very close to what I need, if I can put those on layers and blend out the seams ... that's where I was going with "dissapate", not sure how else to explain it.
  3. Yep, that's the closest I've gotten actually, but I can't get it without the seams even with a blur effect (either on that layer or on another layer with varying opacity). It's not a big deal and it's hard to explain, but unfortunately I have run into this situation more than once ... I basically want some sort of "dissipate" filter where it would slowly alpha the colors out over distance, yet not make it look overly stretched. Edit: I've done far better than this attached image, it's just showing the defaults with the Trail plugin. I'll probably just have to go with a close-in fade.
  4. I did get there. I apologize for my poor description, but essentially I need to center an image like that but on a 4x horizontal canvas, while keeping the majority of the subject in focus. It looks better if the edges are stretched (into infinity and beyond?) instead of just a rapid fade-out. I tried applying stretch filters + transparency ... just to try to get hints of color from the edges to pull further out before they dissipate. Thank you for the assistance though ... that's the route I will go if I can't get it more "artistic" or whatever you would call it.
  5. I've tried that approach, including additional transparent layers, but I can't either get rid of the seam or make it fade over enough distance so that it isn't obvious. In my example of a photo cropped at the wrists with arms outstretched, I would like to keep the subject in full focus but fade out the edges in a way that makes it seamless. I even tried blurs like the zoom blur, overlayed at various transparencies to try to "pull" the edge of the photo out into the expanded canvas, but it always ends up either too drastic or with a hard seam line where the blur meets the photo. I write code for a living, don't edit photos ... but I must be missing something obvious. Edit: I attached an example I just got from Google Images ... I need to make the cut on these sorts of things less obvious. At least in my current cases the background matches the expanded canvas background.
  6. I am somewhat of a "power user" with Paint.net (10+ years, lots of plugins, lots of layers) ... so feel free to throw at me some complexity. If you have a photo that is cut off at the edges, what is the most efficient way to "fade out" this image into a larger, solid-color expanded canvas? For example, if you have a person in an image who is holding their arms out, but the photo crops out their hands at the wrist ... how can you make this look presentable if you have to double the canvas size horizontally onto a solid white background? I'm thinking of a smooth fade without artifacts. I've tried this with a variety of layering techniques and plugin effects (blurs, etc) and I can't get a seamless transition from photo to solid color. Thanks!
  7. Yep, over the canvas. I've literally been using the software since 2004 when it came out of WSU, and sadly on top of that I'm a senior C# dev (what it's written in). It's odd, CTRL+A works to select, CTRL+D does nothing, but CTRL+Z to undo works fine. I will try to run some tools, it must be something on my side maybe hooking the key command (never good). I only noticed it in Paint.net.
  8. Odd. As a software developer, here's the easiest repro steps ever: File -> New Image CTRL+A (expected result -> select all / actual result -> select all) pass CTRL + D to deselect (expected result -> deselect all / actual result -> nothing) fail No idea why.
  9. Apologizes if this has been brought up before (I looked) ... Does CTRL+D no longer deselect the currently selected region? It's driving me nuts, maybe I just didn't notice until now. But If I select a region (lasso, area tool, whatever) and want to remove the selection, CTRL+D no longer does the trick. CTRL+I will stil invert it (thankfully), but it seems ESC is now required? Edit: ESC is not deselecting either.
  10. Were you saving these files in the Paint.Net installation folder?? If you are in Windows 10, you can read this ... if not you are going to need a raw undelete tool from the drive like DiskDigger or something similar. Not a Paint.net issue.
  11. I promise I won't derail this thread into something completely random, and this is actually on topic now! There is one glaring problem with this statement regarding the Chrome change. That quote above is only possible if the software allows the user to change the mappings. If the mouse software can allow me to say "X does Y", a browser can, but Google WONT. That is a different story. And yes I realize one is a driver and the other is a browser but, in the end, we're talking about what is best for the end-user, because they keep the lights on. As to what that has to do with this? Thanks again to Rick for making it a user option!
  12. I think they are either rolling out as a A/B test phase, or they are only putting it on certain platforms? New people are joining in the fun every day though ... the message on their product forum has 384 posts (rants) and almost 12,500 views. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/D4VMOXTxPwg;context-place=forum/chrome I got it when I updated to 52.0.2743.82m.
  13. That's honestly really interesting. As a long-time software developer (well before when Firefox was named Firebird!) I had no idea those keys were even mapped to that. It's honestly always been CTRL+TAB to move to the next for me, really quick with the left hand and three leftmost fingers. I also had no idea you could do CTRL+SHIFT+TAB ... I'm usually lazy and just keep CTRL+TABing until I get back to it. But I do use CTRL+SHIFT+T numerous times a day to re-open the one I just accidentally closed! Anyways, I don't work on this project so none of this matters anyway The problem is that this is sort of the "standard" across software projects where you have anything resembling tabs now. So much so that when you type "keys to move tabs" into Google, or anything that resembles that, you get: But I will say, again, Google's ridiculous decision to remove backspace to "go back" from Chrome, and on top of that mapping it to the abominable ALT+Left? That one definitely requires both hands, removing one from the mouse for no reason. So now I just right-click and then left-click "Back" on the context menu. Grrr....
  14. Thank you! Going the correct route, opposite of what Google is doing with the "you can all forget about the backspace key". I am fully aware "more options" can often lead to a development nightmare, but in this case, I think it's required. I realize the benefits of the feature, but the upsides (for me, using it daily) is outweighed by far by the downsides.
  15. I will admit, I have learned the benefits of this feature on certain occasions. Today I had to select a large area of a vertical image when it was already zoomed in. I lassoed across the bottom, then up, and let it scroll all the way to the top. So that was actually pretty awesome, and I see more now why this was requested. However, it definitely needs tweaking ... there are more situations where I'm at a loss as to what I'm looking at after doing something, or why scrollbars exist when everything is currently in view.