Paint.NET :: Put Picture To Larger Grid - Pixelating To Scale?
Feb 4, 2014
I'm trying to put a picture (subject on a plain background) on a grid, with the picture being pixelated enough to match the scale of the grid, but I'm getting stuck trying to keep the detail of the picture as the grid step gets larger. (see below) Sounds impossible, but i know i'm getting caught up in the maths somewhere. Is there a way to manipulate the picture to get the detail in the bottom pic to transfer to the larger grid step of the top pi without changing the size of the grid?
Is it possible to use .png grey scale photo edges (made for photoshop) in paint.net? I found some "frames" that will add various edges to the image (torn edge, lace, ect), but they are in grey scale and I'm not sure how, if I can, to use them in pdn. I'm just wanting to give a ragged or other style edge to my photos or backgrounds to use them for digital scrapbooking and framed photos.
It doesnt matter what i do. when i try to scale any object from larger to smaler, even when its on a group. it deforms the positon of the ancor points i think its a bug. because it doesnt matter what i do whit the configuration, its still bothering to the point that is really unconfortable to work.
I have family that lost a daughter to an accident and I just took some family photos. The family wants me to put a small photo of her in the upper corner of the family photos.
I'm using MaxDesign 2013 and 2014. Both have the same problem. When I work on something that is scaled for an architectural sized project with units set to Feet and the extents about 1000 Feet the display is difficult to work with. The objects, mostly simple boxes, are torn and missing faces. Intersections are sawtooth.
A few years ago I had the issue but I had mistakenly created a model that was miles wide instead of inches and Max had a hard time with it. Once I recreated it in the correct scale at about 10 inches all was well. But, Max is used a lot for architecture so a scale in feet that spans a few thousand feet should look good. The way it looks now there is no way to evaluate intersections, shadows and simple geometry relationships.
I can't seem to correct it. I went back to Direct3D from Nitrous and that didn't work. I've attached a view.
3ds Max Design (3D Studio thru Max 2014), ASUS P9X79 Motherboard, Intel i7-3960x, Hydro H80 CPU Chiller, 32GB DDR3 Ram, Quadro 4000 Display Adapter
I'm looking for an option to adjust the grid size and to snap-to-grid.
For some purposes, you can find a way around this, but it is a pain when working on a project that requires perfect precision.
The topic has been brought up before, but I'm hoping to hear of any news on the possibility of implementing it. I don't assume there has been made any plugins to cater this need since earlier posts on the matter, so I'm hoping to persuade developers to implement the feature in a new version of paint.net instead.
If you need to know more specifically what I'm looking for, then it's basically what you have in Adobe Illustrator or any decent 3D modelling software you will ever come across. It would work pretty much exactly like the grid already in place, except you would not be limited to working only with individual pixels, but rather groups of pixels as you zoom further out. The grid would preferably have thicker lines every 5, 10 or 15 lines, etc. for user to position the various elements.
I'm using Paint.NET 3.5.8 on Windows 7 SP1 64-bit.
While editing small (16 x 16) images, I noticed that Paint.NET used a grid with a width of 2 pixels. Selection rectangles snap to this grid, as do paste operations.
How can I specify the grid width or disable this snap to grid effect altogether?
I'm looking for a program that can take 100's or 1000's of pictures and combine them based on their overall color spectrum into the pixels of a specific design.
Exactly what the topic title says. My goal is to draw a custom map with pinpoint accuracy compared to what I envision it as. So, I want to use a grid that I can fill in the individual sections of to create this image, and then remove the grid afterwards when I finish, or at least make it completely invisible.
I just installed autocad architecture 2012. when i opened it to start creating a new drawing/project the unit of measurement was in Millimeters.. i needed the Unit of measurement to be in architectural units, so i used the units command to change it to architectural units. the problem i am having now is that i think the Grid Scale is still in MM. when i tried to draw a line on the grid the line appeared to be tiny. the length of the line was 36'-5". i adjusted the scale to 1/4"=1' but that didnt change anything. in order to see the line that i drew i have to zoom in so much..
How do i adjust the grid scale to be the same as the units?
I set up a new page thus (I live in a country which uses metric units, so ...):
Drawing Units Setting18-07-2013 9-24-06 AM.jpg
Then:
Command: '_limits Reset Model space limits: Specify lower left corner or [ON/OFF] <0.0000,0.0000>: 0.00,0.00 Specify upper right corner <3.5000,2.7000>: 3.65,2.74 Command: C CIRCLE Specify center point for circle or [3P/2P/Ttr (tan tan radius)]: 1000,1000 Specify radius of circle or [Diameter]: 250 Command:
and I get:
Range Problem 18-07-2013 9-36-57 AM.jpg
The circle was centred at x=1000 metres, y=1000 metres, yet it displays right down at the bottom left of my screen. Compare the radius of the circle to the distance from the centre to the origin - it's nothing like 1:4! Look at the coordinates for the cursor!
Zooming in and zooming out has no effect on the huge dimensions indicated by the coordinates.
I know this must be simple because it is not mentioned in any textbook or tutorial I have been able to find. Authors don't seem to think it is important, but it's driving me nuts! The question is this:
How do I set the page size and grid scale to something sane?
I am pretty sure that this scale problem is at the root of many of the other problems I am having. A14 is doing it's job faithfully but the display is so small that I cannot see what is happening !
I have a couple of field book file related questions
1. Can you apply a grid scale factor to measured distances when importing from an fbk file? You can apply using coordinate transformation if importing from csv file but I need to use FBK files to allow the user to make changes to the observation data of the points. As far as I can see the translate survey database command allows you to shift easting, northing, rotation and elevation but not scale. There is mention of a workaround at the following link but I could not locate this on the Civil Community.
[URL]....
"The Survey Data must first be imported from the FBK into the Survey Database, then translated/rotated in the Survey Database using the Survey Addition available from Autodesk Civil Community website, or some other third-party solution."
2. Also on fbk files, I have manually typed in alphnumeric point ID's for the point number in the field (see fbk file attached, file extension changed). When importing the resulting fbk file into Civil 3D the point ID's come in under point name and I cannot determine where it is getting the point number from? Opening the fbk file in notepad I do not see any of the point numbers that are getting assigned to the points in C3D. Where these numbers are coming from? Also is it possible to import alphanumeric strings as point numbers using fbk format?
Using description keys would require manually entering in the point ID as an attribute with each point (it automatically appears if added as point number with incremental identifier). This doesnt seem like a big deal but tI may have up to 10,000 sections to survey with 250 points in each section so it would be time consuming.
The neww line expressions for Grid distance are phenominal. My problem is getting them into curves. All I want to do is apply the grid scale factor to the curve length and radius, but I can't narrow down the parameter. The Drawing Scale conversion links to the annotation scale. I've also noticed people just scripting in the value, but that doesn't work when the majority of the office doesn't operate at that level.
Also, I work in grid and need to convert to ground. I noticed that the system only does ground to grid, so I'm inputting an inverted scale factor to get the results in need in my distances.
where you have a smaller preview image and you click it to open a larger version. I'm sure there's something super simple that I'm overlooking somehow.
I'm trying to use Gimp to add a visible grid to a printed picture, so thatI can use it as a guide when painting a copy of the pic. I haven't beenable to figure out how from the documentation. There is a grid, and itshows on screen, but not when I print.
What is the advantage/usage of limits command? I know it specify the area where could be filled with Grid command. But is it, its only usage? What other usage could be expected from "limits"?
If we want to make the paper space and model space same (draw in same scale, if we use 1/100 scale in metric system, 1 meter in model space is equal to 1 centimeter in paper space), is it a wise idea to set the model space into A4 or A3 paper size by use of LIMITS?
I think its utmost usage is in combination with "snap". Where you can quickly grab the points you want onscreen without need for coordinate input. Would be happy if there is other usage for GRID
Before, I thought limits will specify the area in model space where I can draw (limit the area of model space). But this is in contrary with the fact that model space is limitless and I can draw as far as I want.
It is really hard to understand that there is no limit for model space like real world.
I haven't understood these issues until I read many threads in CT. Now I have got most of them but I think I need some extra study to understand them 100%.
I've recently started using Paint.NET and I've been very impressed with its features. I've run into some problems working with large images though. URL...
It's a 10000 x 11299 pixel PNG image. I want to be able to zoom in quite far in order to look at some of the fine details, and make some notes on the image while I go. Unfortunately, as I read elsewhere on this forum, it seems that Paint.NET currently doesn't support a virtual canvas size greater than 32768 x 32768. On this image, that means I get a maximum zoom of 290% before I can't zoom in anymore, which isn't very much. Right now I'm having to use the "Windows Photo Viewer" to actually view and zoom into the image, while making the notes zoomed further out in Paint.NET, which is a bit cumbersome.
I know this is probably non-trivial to fix, but it would be fantastic if you can remove this barrier on the maximum virtual canvas size.
I have a .pdf with 4 signatures (John Hancock) that are HUGE!
- I can highlight each signature individually and save each one as a separate .bmp
- Opening the signature in photoshop (CS3) the picture looks great when it's big! I can print from photoshop and it looks marvelous on paper.
- When I size it down to the size that I need (W:120 H:45 pxls) it looks like crap when it's printed (which is what the signatures are for). They are very pixelated.
Is there anything I can do, to take a gorgeous large .bmp and turn it into a gorgeous small .bmp?
how to make the twisted grid effect in the background of the below picture. I am talking about the structure in the background the one starting orange on the right fading into pink than blue .Am using photoshop CS6.
I'm just working on a flyer for a party and I like how the picture looks like after clicking on the picture with the magic wand.Now the question if I can save that picture with that looking someway?
I could use the print button, yes but then I lose the quality of the pic.
I'm making a video with mostly titles. I have found the video transitions to be very choppy, so I've opted to control the opacity fade of each individual title, creating keyframes that move from 0%-100% then back 100%-0%. This simulates a nice fade from black, fade to black effect. However, when i do this all of the text in my titles pixelates.
I'm running PSPX3. the effect of no compression (or compression factor = 1) on saving files. I've got a JPEG image file straight from my camera that's approximately 4.1MB in size. If I do nothing else but "Save As" with a compression factor of 1, the new file size is approximately 50% larger, or 6.2MB. What has changed to make the file size larger? Both images are still 72DPI, 3648X2736px. I can't image that I have done anything to "improve" image quality, so why did the file size increase?
I'll admit it up front, I'm a way better photographer than a photoshop wizard. I'm attempting to take a gif file of my son's schools mascot, an indian chief, and make it large enough to be digitized & then embroidered onto his new Varsity Jacket. The gif is purple with a translucent background. When I attempt to place it, it gets a white pixelated boarder around the purple art work. Not sure if this is normal. My worry is that when I send it to the folks embroidering it, that they'll enlarge the photo & they'll also get this white nasty boarder & it will turn out awful.
So, I've got 2 problems, we want the Indian chief embroidered in white & it is purple now. When I enlarge the file in purple, it looks great to the 10 inch size file I'm placing it on. However, when I try to change it to white in the 10 inch size, it shows this rough pixelated looking boarder. In fact, no matter what size it is, it always shows this white boarder.
Is there a way to fix this white boarder thingy & also "digitize it into
