Jump to content

Paint.COM


DaveD
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mhmm...

th_PaintCOM-DidYouMean.png

Yes, that is a screenshot of the bottom portion of the results page; they aren't even at the top of their own search results!

From my five minutes of experience, it isn't all that bad. I think it's a little like ArtWeaver, in that it isn't a major player in the freeware graphic editor world as Paint.NET or the GIMP are, but it has great potential for bettering itself and features yearned for by us as standard.

For instance, a rather basic layer masking capability; built-in border effect; customisable toolbars and icons, whilst not appealing to me, is something great discussion has rooted from; decent bevel and drop shadow tools as standard; and better polygonal creation with its live manipulation as our Line / Curve tool gives now. Speaking of lines, manipulation numbs are created exponentially with each adjustment. It also has a Custom Operations dialog to exact custom effects on the image, à la CodeLab or Equations. Of final note, it's got a a fancy splash screen.

On the other hand, built-in effects are sparse, especially photographic effects. I'm yet to find a greyscale or sepia adjustments, hue adjustment comes through editing each RGB channel individually, and Sharpen is little to be desired. The text tool is barely different from our own, with only the added benefit of adding a drop shadow at the time of creation rather than after the fact; gradients come from the fill of a created shape instead of it being its own element; all measurements - from selections to new canvases - are in pixels, so if you don't know your pixel dimensions you're a slightly buggered (not mentioning it appears to be devoid of resolution settings); and the Configure Layer Effects dialog is virtually a displaced Effects menu of Paint.NET, albeit with a few bugs to iron out*. I'm unsure about additional brushes, but I'd lay bets they don't exists.

Related to the brush, the standard brush can be a fiddly at first to get the desired texture.

I'm sure there are ways to install plugins or suchlike, but I haven't found it yet, nor got the inclination to find out.

In all it's a swanky package, with, like I said, potential. For myself, though, I probably won't use it that often as Paint.NET and GIMP service my needs quite well.

*An export of the layer causes an unending reiterating of the same dialog no matter how many times you close it, leading to an eventual royal screwing. Thanks be to the saviour ProceXP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty thorough review, Myrddin. Good work.

It would be a miracle to get first place in Google 2 days after going public. Look at getpaint.net result for paint.net search...

BTW it is not meant for photo retouching. Hence no fancy sharpen or Grayscale (though you can use Color saturation filter to get Grayscale and Colorize to get Sepia) or DPI handling.

To the layer effects (and the "bug" you found). This is something completely different than a displaced Effect menu. You configure one or more (using the Sequence filter) effects for a layer and these are then continuously applied as you draw into that layer. It's similar to Photoshop layer effects. It looks very cool if you configure for example bevel to be your layer effect and then draw for example polygons or text. Try it 8)

Of course, if Export is selected as layer effect, then every time the application redraws the canvas, it attempts to export the layer, which is very bad, but...it is the price to pay for being able to use anything as layer effect and not just selected filters as in Ps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...From my five minutes of experience, it isn't all that bad. I think it's a little like ArtWeaver, in that it isn't a major player in the freeware graphic editor world as Paint.NET or the GIMP are, but it has great potential for bettering itself and features yearned for by us as standard.

i like it, nice name

 

You should get the Win7 theme for XP. Then get the rest of Win7. Then uninstall XP. Then it'll really look nice. ~ David Atwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty thorough review...
It was never meant to be anything substantial. Thank you all the same. I haven't been very active lately and a few members were curious, so I decided to make up for lost time and describe my (terribly brief) first impressions. You've added to that with your insightful input that has answered a few of the concerns I highlighted.

For instance:

BTW it is not meant for photo retouching. Hence no fancy sharpen or Grayscale (though you can use Color saturation filter to get Grayscale and Colorize to get Sepia) or DPI handling.
As well as:
You configure one or more (using the Sequence filter) effects for a layer and these are then continuously applied as you draw into that layer.

[...]

After your explanation, this particular feature makes more sense. With another quick run-through it all started to 'click' and I see how this works now. Maybe I'm too used to Paint.NET and GIMP, and I didn't spend all that long with it, explaining my presumptions that this was a photo editor.

You aren't affiliated with Paint.COM, are you? ;)

...Paint.NET ...
i like it, nice name
My clumsiness is nothing new. Although, reading some topics, it looks as though some (frankly, ungrateful) members may agree with this rebranding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am. Could not resist joining this thread when I found it.

Why are you using the name Paint.COM? It appears to be a deliberate attempt to infringe upon the Paint.NET brand/trademark by taking advantage of most user's inherent ambivalence of ".net" vs. ".com" naming suffixes. You really should use a different name.

To your credit, people seem to like the program -- the name, however, is very poorly chosen.

The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/

Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html

forumSig_bmwE60.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you using the name Paint.COM? It appears to be a deliberate attempt to infringe upon the Paint.NET brand by taking advantage of most user's inherent ambivalence of ".net" vs. ".com" naming suffixes. You really should use a different name.

It's built on COM technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's built on COM technology.

I know why you use the COM acronym. The statement and question still stand, and this is not just a petty inquiry. You're running into some very serious areas of trademark infringement with well-established legal precedents regarding confusingly similar marks.

The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/

Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html

forumSig_bmwE60.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why you use the COM acronym. The statement and question still stand, and this is not just a petty inquiry. You're running into some very serious areas of trademark infringement with well-established legal precedents regarding confusingly similar marks.

I know little about trademarks. Though, I know the COM has nothing to do with .com domain as you have implied, the application itself is not web-based and there is no connection to any web stuff or even the paint.com domain. Furthermore, it is capitalized as is usual with an acronym and unusual with an Internet domain. I believe this is the same with Paint.net, where the .net is also not related to Internet domain.

BTW I believe Paint is sufficiently generic word and people can combine it with anything to make it unique. If this were not the case, how would you be able to combine Paint with .net, both being associated with Microsoft? Or does the Paint.net trademark only exist with their silent support? I am really curious.

Edit: one more thing: the full name is RealWorld Paint.COM 2008.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to do with the 2 components of the name being generic on their own, or having an "in" with Microsoft. The issue is the similarity between the non-generic combination of the 2 parts. When it comes to naming something like that, it's first-come, first-served, and the kids at WSU beat you to the punch.

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why you use the COM acronym. The statement and question still stand, and this is not just a petty inquiry. You're running into some very serious areas of trademark infringement with well-established legal precedents regarding confusingly similar marks.

I know little about trademarks. Though, I know the COM has nothing to do with .com domain as you have implied, the application itself is not web-based and there is no connection to any web stuff or even the paint.com domain. Furthermore, it is capitalized as is usual with an acronym and unusual with an Internet domain. I believe this is the same with Paint.net, where the .net is also not related to Internet domain.

BTW I believe Paint is sufficiently generic word and people can combine it with anything to make it unique. If this were not the case, how would you be able to combine Paint with .net, both being associated with Microsoft? Or does the Paint.net trademark only exist with their silent support? I am really curious.

if you havent noticed, the website which you download off is getpaint.net, and now a paint company donated the domain name paint.net.

BTW I believe Paint is sufficiently generic word and people can combine it with anything to make it unique. If this were not the case, how would you be able to combine Paint with .net, both being associated with Microsoft? Or does the Paint.net trademark only exist with their silent support? I am really curious

because the word PAINT isnt owned by anyone, but the trademark of paint.NET is owned by Rick.

Correct me if im mistaken.

GG-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too surmise everybody's feelings here without being overly blunt, many users enjoy the program. However, the naming of the product is what some people like to call a 'Namesteal'. Paint, in itself, is generic. .NET, in itself, is not generic (in this case) because it is reffering to the .NET framework, a licensed framework to one M'soft. As such, Paint.NET is non generic and is a trademark to Rick Brewster and has come to identify the Paint.NET brand.

The Paint.NET brand includes its media stature, its fanbase, its recognition, and many other elements. When you release a product title that bears many similarities to another named product, you are immediately stealing the brand of the original product. For instance, the first part of both Paint.NET and Paint.COM is paint, both being used in reference to the image editing application. The second part is reffering to the framework it was built on. Namesteal. Brandsteal.

I cannot claim for certain whether it was an intentional brandsteal or if it was just coincidental, however I think you would find that changing the name from Paint.COM to another name that does not imply the product to be any other than itself would give your product its own respect and culture, and would develop a brand of its own. But by breaching into the Paint.NET brand so openly, you are offending many Paint.NET users.

It is 3:00 AM in the morning, so I can only hope I have written sensual arguement ;)

signature.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to think of a good example to represent a brandsteal and namesteal, however I could not come up with one. Until, that is, when I went searching for a link to your product:

comnetgoogle.png

*Every new* keyword will be considered a typo by Google until it is used for a long enough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...