Thread: [Tuxpaint-devel] A list of the Tux Paint canvas (and starters) size.
An award-winning drawing program for children of all ages
Brought to you by:
wkendrick
Menu
▾
▴
tuxpaint-devel
|
From: Robert E. <r_e...@in...> - 2007-02-23 01:59:38
|
Tux Paint Developer List
I am developing starters for kids to practice matte painting for motion
pictures using Tux Paint (on the Macintosh). I find that some of the
information on the page "Extending Tux Paint" is incomplete or wrong.
By measuring, I find that:
Wide view:
1. For the Tux Paint mode set to 640 by 480, the Tux Paint canvas is 448 by
376 pixels.
2. For the Tux Paint mode set to 800 by 600, the Tux Paint canvas is 608 by
472 pixels. (This is NOT 608 by 496 as listed in the "Extended Tux Paint"
info page for the correct canvas size for starters.)
3. For the Tux Paint mode set to 1024 by 768, the Tux Paint canvas is 832 by
664 pixels.
4. For the Tux Paint mode set to 1280 by 1024, the Tux Paint canvas is 1088
by 904 pixels.
5. For the Tux Paint mode set to 1400 by 1050, the Tux Paint canvas is 1208
by 904 pixels. (I am not sure why the Macintosh came up with such an odd
size. Maybe my screen was too small.)
6. For the Tux Paint mode set to 1600 by 1200, the Tux Paint canvas is 1408
by 1096 pixels.
Portrait view:
1. For the Tux Paint mode set to 768 by 1024, the Tux Paint canvas is 576 by
904 pixels.
2. For the Tux Paint mode set to 1024 by 1280, the Tux Paint canvas is 832
by 1144 pixels.
Please tell me if this is correct before I create starters at these
sizes. And if this info is correct, it should be added to the "Extending Tux
Paint" info page for people who want to create starters.
Note: Both Tux Farmer and Nagasaki starters are off by at least one
pixel in size.
Robert Elliott
Wikiversity Instructor
WikiU Film School
r_e...@in...
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/filmmaking
|
|
From: Albert C. <aca...@gm...> - 2007-02-25 22:39:42
|
On 2/22/07, Robert Elliott <r_e...@in...> wrote: > Please tell me if this is correct before I create starters at these > sizes. And if this info is correct, it should be added to the "Extending Tux > Paint" info page for people who want to create starters. Tux Paint can be started in many other sizes, like these: 666x555 640x1001 2560x1600 The existing layouts might need to change a bit. For example, the OLPC XO is 1200x900 but as blurry as a TV. |
|
From: Bill K. <nb...@so...> - 2007-02-26 18:30:51
|
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 05:39:41PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On 2/22/07, Robert Elliott <r_e...@in...> wrote: > > > Please tell me if this is correct before I create starters at these > > sizes. And if this info is correct, it should be added to the "Extending Tux > > Paint" info page for people who want to create starters. > > Tux Paint can be started in many other sizes, like these: > > 666x555 > 640x1001 > 2560x1600 Indeed. I THINK the docs have been updated since the last version to cover this. I've also updated Tux Paint Config to have two pulldowns... one for width, one for height, and they both have the same list of sizes, so you can easily do portrait vs. landscape. In any case, the canvas size should be: (window width - 192) x (window height - 128) The buttons are 48x48, and there are two columns of them on each side, so the canvas starts 96px in from the left, and ends 96px from the right. The Tux penguin text area, and color palette take up 128px at the bottom. -- -bill! bi...@ne... http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/ |
|
From: Albert C. <aca...@gm...> - 2007-02-27 03:19:03
|
On 2/26/07, Bill Kendrick <nb...@so...> wrote: > In any case, the canvas size should be: > > (window width - 192) x (window height - 128) > > The buttons are 48x48, and there are two columns of them on each side, > so the canvas starts 96px in from the left, and ends 96px from the right. > > The Tux penguin text area, and color palette take up 128px at the bottom. I'm wondering if this ought to be scalable in some way, either just the non-drawing parts or the whole thing. The OLPC XO uses a 7.5" 1200x900 display. For 1200x900 it's very blurry, though it's fairly normal for a display of such physical dimensions. (like TV, effectively somewhere around 400x300 to 693x520) Fine patterns and thin lines along an upper-right to lower-left axis tend to show severe color artifacts. The color gamut is also compressed, and usually the display is run with 5 bits/channel. There is also the matter of the beautiful Tux Paint appearance not being the specified style of ugly grey blocky shapes. Oh well though, there is not much sense using Tux Paint in the greyscale mode where the ugly style is kind of useful. |
|
From: Bill K. <nb...@so...> - 2007-03-04 07:46:44
|
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:19:02PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > I'm wondering if this ought to be scalable in some way, either just the > non-drawing parts or the whole thing. I would like to make this more flexible, down the road, yes. (So you could have REALLY BIG buttons on a very high resolution screen, rather than having small buttons, and a ton of unused button slots.) For now, though, you're stuck with the 48x48s. :^/ <snip> > There is also the matter of the beautiful Tux Paint appearance not > being the specified style of ugly grey blocky shapes. Oh well though, > there is not much sense using Tux Paint in the greyscale mode where > the ugly style is kind of useful. You could always replace the UI PNGs. I was thinking, recently, that it'd be nice to allow them to be themed, so you could have a high contrast set of buttons, for low-sighted users, for example. e.g.: tuxpaint --uitheme highcontrast where "highcontrast" is just the name of a subfolder in the UI data hierarchy. -- -bill! bi...@ne... http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/ |
|
From: Albert C. <aca...@gm...> - 2007-03-04 19:12:27
|
On 3/4/07, Bill Kendrick <nb...@so...> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:19:02PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > I'm wondering if this ought to be scalable in some way, either just the > > non-drawing parts or the whole thing. > > I would like to make this more flexible, down the road, yes. > (So you could have REALLY BIG buttons on a very high resolution screen, > rather than having small buttons, and a ton of unused button slots.) > > For now, though, you're stuck with the 48x48s. :^/ Maybe the answer is to run as 600x450, scaling the whole screen up to 1200x900. The display is blurry anyway. |
|
From: Bill K. <nb...@so...> - 2007-03-04 22:29:11
|
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:12:23PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > Maybe the answer is to run as 600x450, scaling the whole screen > up to 1200x900. The display is blurry anyway. Does the OLPC system handle this? (e.g., if we have SDL ask it for a full-screen 600x450 display, will it scale it up? Or will it end up with black borders?) Also, Tux Paint still needs tweaking before it can fit properly in <640 by <480. -- -bill! bi...@ne... http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/ |
|
From: Albert C. <aca...@gm...> - 2007-03-04 23:49:19
|
On 3/4/07, Bill Kendrick <nb...@so...> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 02:12:23PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > Maybe the answer is to run as 600x450, scaling the whole screen > > up to 1200x900. The display is blurry anyway. > > Does the OLPC system handle this? (e.g., if we have SDL ask it for > a full-screen 600x450 display, will it scale it up? Or will it end up with > black borders?) I was planning to handle it as Tux Paint updates the screen. SDL would be unaware. > Also, Tux Paint still needs tweaking before it can fit properly in <640 by > <480. Sure. The stamps and shapes can go. |
|
From: Bill K. <nb...@so...> - 2007-03-14 09:19:17
|
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:05:15PM -0800, Robert Elliott wrote: > Tux Paint Developer List > > I am developing starters for kids to practice matte painting for motion > pictures using Tux Paint (on the Macintosh). I find that some of the > information on the page "Extending Tux Paint" is incomplete or wrong. > > By measuring, I find that: <snip> It should, at the moment, always be 192 px narrower than the window, and 128 px shorter in height than the window. I'll make sure to update the EXTENDING docs to cover this! -bill! |
|
From: Albert C. <aca...@gm...> - 2007-03-14 17:21:53
|
On 3/14/07, Bill Kendrick <nb...@so...> wrote: > It should, at the moment, always be 192 px narrower than the window, > and 128 px shorter in height than the window. Sure about the height? I think it's 40 plus the largest multiple of 48 that wouldn't make the tux text area shorter than 56. Thus the tux text area varies between 56 and 103. That makes the drawing area shorter than the screen by 144 to 191. Well, it was something like that when I wrote the code to allow arbitrary sizes. |
|
From: Bill K. <nb...@so...> - 2007-03-15 02:15:07
|
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:21:42PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On 3/14/07, Bill Kendrick <nb...@so...> wrote: > > > It should, at the moment, always be 192 px narrower than the window, > > and 128 px shorter in height than the window. > > Sure about the height? Ack, actually, no. I recall it being 128 for a few sizes, but obviously did not check the code. I'll be sure to do so. -bill! |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X