MS Paint Poll

[Ryumaru]

i gave it a 7. im not saying its some great pixel art program, it gets the job done. its just plain and simple, i dont need millions of features, i dont need 2000 hot keys, i dont need to be able to zoom to the point where a pixel is like half an inch on the screen. whenever i open up my promotion trial, everything is just so cluttered, so many tools, so many windows, so much stuff! if paint had animation capabilites, i wouldnt need any other program.

[Hero]

8. I know its high, but though innefficent it can still do a job almost as well.

Like using a pen instead of a pencil in my opinion.

[Frychiko]

I'd vote a 0 if it were there, oh well 1 it is.

[Helm]

One.

[Akira]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
for quick linearts i like it (i do lines and colours in seperate sessions normally). then i sometimes take the good linearts into promo cause of the nicer colour handling. ms paint isn't good. but it can be useful when you just want an oekaki type sketchy thing.

[goat]

David: it's because your butt smells.

[Zach]

<3 mspaint... my best bud

and always will be.

[Delgneith]

I have to admit I grew up on MS Paint. From Windows 3.1 to Windows XP. I'm not going to lie and say it's the most efficient program but the job can get done just the same as it can in other programs save for animation and proper color indexing. You can create any picture in that program as in another it's just a matter of why would you want to.

At the end of the day we are pixel artists though. Not like we're choosing the easiest way to get stuff done. I mean why anti-alias pixel by pixel when Photoshop can do it? Well for one it's because we can (also some of the AA algorithms out there are a bit sketchy). But it's a tedious task either way laying out stuff pixel by pixel so why not use Paint?

I'm going give it a 5 because it's both a good starting point but also horrible for efficiency.

[Helm]

I mean why anti-alias pixel by pixel when Photoshop can do it?

Because we do it better than machines, and on a case-by-case basis. More sharpness there, more definition there, more blur there, whatever. It's not just masochism.

[Ai]

Because we do it better than machines, and on a case-by-case basis. More sharpness there, more definition there, more blur there, whatever. It's not just masochism.

Though arguably most of that would be achieved as well by a combination of auto-aa, masking of the layer holding the auto-aaed version, and blurring, with a little touchup, depending on image scale. I've experimented with that successfully. The main value in doing it manually is better artistic flow (by which i mean mental flow), say I.

I just tried it again, and agree with the above still. The obstacle is mainly, when you apply AA yourself, you're working forwards (adding to the picture). When you're reversing AA, you're working backwards (removing what's been added)

also some of the AA algorithms out there are a bit sketchy

Really? I thought it was pretty simple for most kinds of AA.. just 'how much of this sub-pixel triangle falls into this pixel?' (which can be done by basic arithmetic). The only AA sketchiness i've seen is quantization (only, say, 16 levels of AA). Which wouldn't normally effect pixel art. Do you have any examples?


MsPaint: '640k should be enough for anyone' should summarize why it's a bad app. It's bezier tool is okay IIRC, okay enough to warrant 3 points.