Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jerry533482

  1. This isn't completly exact. It was reported dark clouds of pure evil began to surround people's home, and gobelins attacked computers after .Net 4 have been installed by people. Virgins had to be sacrified for that matter. This is a serious thing. Really.

    This doesn't attract UFOs, right? I can go as far as the second kind, but if .net 4 attracts the third kind or worse ( =O ), I'm waiting for a service pack.

    I'm lookin' forward to an update to PDN, too. This beta's become so buggy & annoying (shape3D doesn't work! I can't make any suns or planets without shape3D!), I've already reverted to build for that matter. It's the best build so far (it still relies on .net 3.5 sp1, not .net 4.0). Better blurring, better zooming, better saving, & every plugin works (Yay for shape3D! :D ). No aliens.

    But seriously, greys do terrify me.

  2. Check the first minute of this video out(I know it talks about Photoshop & brushes, but seriously, some of the plugins you've written, well...

    They're more than comparable to Ps plugins):

    facebook Ps CS5 preview

    I'm not talking about the 3D brush stuff (to be honest, I didn't watch the video that far), but I'm talking about using the smudge tool to blend colors in the drawing space like a brush. Meaning, when you drag the tool, & the color values for the area you dragged through are somehow averaged, & blended. Imagine you put three large (~100px~ each) dots in the drawing space, 1 red, 1 blue, & 1 yellow. Now, if the colors blended correctly, dragging the tool from the blue to yellow would create streaks of green, dragging from the red to the yellow would make some streaks of orange, etc. & mashing a bunch of colors together would eventually create a new color (probably a blackish-brown). Do you understand what I'm getting at? Is it too complicated to implement (maybe as a new plugin), or...

  3. Well, I must have gotten savvy from watching photoshop CS5 ads, but basically, I've noticed that smudge does one thing: it blends areas together to form the illusion of a smudge brush on a real painting. So I figured, if it can blend areas together, why can't it blend color values together? I've tried this, & it doesn't seem to blend very accurately. Perhaps an idea for a future update?...

  4. Well, the problems were mostly just resource hogging. The rendering was most probably slow because I was using a bunch of other apps at the time (thus this is normal for me), but the only serious thing was a few plugins crashing (they probably just needed updating for v3.5.5 (beta)), & PDN recommended closing. I didn't, & kept painting without issue. Aside from the thing with the tolerance bar dropping a level, I haven't really identified any serious errors. Some plugins just need updating, like Rick said.

  5. Okay. I've come upon some really weird issues. Aside from some performance issues & crashing (which is normal for a beta), I've noticed some UI problems. I was using an 8 MP image, which I then resized to 800x600 because I wanted to try a new technique & I didn't want to wait forever for it to render. So anyway, after I resized it, I flipped it counter-clockwise, and ran effects>photo>sharpen at 20. I zoomed in to inspect the quality, & I then noticed this (for creative reasons I closed the image I was working on before taking this screenshot. It'll probably be posted here sometime soon, but for now, it's in the editing stage):


    The zoom & fill bar has dropped one level down, becoming half-way hidden in the process. I don't know if this is normal, or a "new" bug for this beta, or?...

  6. All right. I rebooted, & ran the installer a couple times. The first time, the installer took too long to show up, so I ran it again. It started, but showed a bunch of error messages like paint.net.msi not found in C:\Program Files\Paint.NET; I'm assuming there was a problem with the extraction. But the third tim I ran it, it worked.

    So Rick, will there be more betas for v3.5.5? There obviously appears to be a number of issues that should be fixed.

    But still, thanks for the beta!

  7. This took me about an hour because getting the selections, the web, & the gradients to work right took forever. Spider-man 2 was the best spidey film and this is one of my favorite posters from the series (it was also used for the game, which is also the best in the series), so I figured I'd pixelize it & submit it for the contest.

    the original:



    the pixelization:


    the full size original came from spiderman.sonypictures.com:


  8. i doubt vista or 7 would run evin close to properly on my 1.8 Ghz (single core) pentium 4 and 512 MB of ram.... would they? :/

    I'm running windows 7 home premium x86 on my 1.6 Ghz [single] core acer laptop, and it runs smoothly. No problems except for when I'm multitasking like 6 or 7 apps, then the machine might freeze. But other then that, your machine sounds quite capable of running Windows 7 without issue, with the exception of RAM. Microsoft says you need at least 1 GB (1024 MB), and I have 3 GB, while you have 512 MB. But then again, Windows 7 is designed to run on XP hardware, so there is hope for you.

    Hey Rick, I haven't studied processors & chips in that much detail, but I'm curious as to if you can tell me if my CPU's faster or slower than Leonte's. Mine is an AMD athlon 64 2650e [single] core running at 1.6 GHz with 512kb L2 cache, & as Leonte's stated, his is an Intel Pentitum 4 [single] core at 1.8 Ghz. I know that AMD makes chips that are slower Hz-wise, but have better overall performance, while Intel has better average Hz speeds, at the expense of a smaller cache (although this is not always the case). Given that you are looking into 24 thread CPUs (your blog) & you've had a multi-core processor before I bought my first machine, would you say my CPU is faster, or is Leonte's faster?

  9. I've recently been trying to create more new techniques with PDN, but if I'm working with a bunch of layers, & the effect requires changing blending modes & transparency over & over, & flattening frequently, it's almost impossible to recreate the effect unless you pay VERY close attention to what you did the first time around. Now, I was wondering, is it possible to implement a "save as..." feature that would look like: "save with history as..." that would preserve the entire history bar as metadata, including plugins used, & the settings used. Perhaps it could be a new feature for the .PDN format, or sort of a plugin. Or perhaps an entirely new format based on .PDN. However, I don't think this could really be implemented with flattened formats (e.g.:PNG, JPG, BMP, etc) while maintaining compatibility with other programs. Perhaps the history could be saved as a TXT file?

    Anyway, Is this a possible feature? PDN already stores this data in memory, so why not be able to preserve that with the layers in the final save? It might save a lot of people from confusion.

  10. like Leoholbel said, you don't have to cover the whole background. Although his method seems useful, you could probably do the same thing with the B&W gradient.

    Hmmm,.....perhaps a multicolor gradient would spice things up. Just some ideas. :)

  11. What if, rather than saving all at once at a specific time interval, each step was saved to disk while it was rendering? Wouldn't that even out resource hogging and such? Think about it, saving an entire image is complex (hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pixels for multiple layers) and time consuming, but wouldn't saving a single step at a time hinder performance far less? Sort of a save-as-you-go approach.

  12. I'm not sure this would qualify as a "trick", but I wondered how to do this effect for months as it wasn't officially stated in any tuts or even the getpaint.net manual until I wandered into a random post that stated how to do this "hidden effect". That hidden effect is simply variable rotation in a selection by right clicking & dragging. Quite simple, this is quite useful. Another "hidden" effect would be that you can use the arrow keys to manipulate PDN. Try it, and you'll see what I mean. Very useful for when you're editing a picture pixel-for-pixel.

  13. I agree with Rick on keeping an XP-compatible version of PDN out for a while after mainstream support has been dropped. If you look at the usage statistics, over half of all PDN users are running XP! But with Windows 7 having been released & it's adoption rate being so high, the odds are likely that those numbers will soon change. And for all windows users reading this post, I implore you, upgrade to Windows 7 if you haven't already! It's awesome & well worth it.

    Anyway, vista+ is the way to go for v4.0. We all know how many PDN users would love to see brushes as a feature!

  • Create New...