Designer1

I have only expressed my urgent wish for Publisher improvement. Surely it is not only my wish that Publisher can export IDML. In the forum users from different countries have expressed the same wish several times. This would be a very good feature.

The most important function that Publisher requires is export of IDML files. Without the export to InDesign, professional work with publishing houses is not possible. The publishing houses only work with InDesign.

My reply to that question got lost yesterday.
 
 
 

There was a thread discussing a similar issue yesterday and today but it seems to have disappeared.
Anyway...
If the X and Y px values of a pixel layer are integers then I see no difference switching between Bilinear and Nearest Neighbour in Edit > Settings > Performance (e.g. at 500% zoom)
But if either the X or Y values have decimals then Bilinear produces a blurrier image, whereas Nearest Neighbour displays exactly the same image as when using integer values
Does anyone know what may explain this as I would expect to get the best image quality when using Bilinear but all I can get is the same quality as Nearest Neighbour or a worse image quality (i.e. blurred)?
Note: I am only taking about viewing a pixel image on screen, not exporting or printing it
 
Windows 11

MS Paint is indeed a primitive software. It displays the exported image as it is, without any enhancements, such as the browser.
I hope Serif will improve the export quality. I really have much more to do than report bugs here in the forum.

Such a procedure is cumbersome and incomprehensible. All DIN A formats should already be available when creating a new document.

I know that. However, this is not functional. The new CorelDRAW 2021 offers much better possibilities: Multi-page view and single-page view.
https://www.coreldraw.com/en/product/coreldraw/?hp=hero-pc

Color mode RGB/8, not RGB/16 or RGB/32. Don´t save with History, Delete all Snapshot, Rasterize and Trim for cropeed pixel layer, delete all hidden pixel layer/copy...
It would be easier to advise if you provided an example file.

I suspect that not good export quality of PNG and JPG, especially with typography and round graphics is related to a not optimally programmed antialising profile.

MS Paint is indeed a primitive software. It displays the exported image as it is, without any enhancements, such as the browser.
I hope Serif will improve the export quality. I really have much more to do than report bugs here in the forum.

It would be very practical to be able to insert the preset sizes such as A5, A4, A3, A2, etc. while working. You can actually insert an A2 artboard manually, but you have to know the height and width first. This is very cumbersome and time-consuming.

Hey Designer1,
Respectfully, I've split this from the PNG HDR thread posted by Ash as we want to keep replies relevant to the new feature. We understand your feelings regarding the current PNG/JPEG export and any further comments should be posted in your existing thread if possible. That way, if and when the time comes that the developers wish to look into this, everything is in one place. 

It would be important to improve the export quality of PNG and JPG. Affinity Designer is a great app, the biggest disadvantage is the poorer export quality than Adobe Illustrator.
 
 
 

Apps: All
Platforms: Windows, macOS and iPad
All Affinity apps now support import and export of 32bit HDR PNG files, as described in the PNG specification (3rd edition). Both PQ and HLG are supported alongside full / narrow range and a full set of primaries. Files exported can be used directly in video editing applications or shared on the web (Chrome now supports HDR PNG files). In addition, legacy PNG and TIFF files exported from Photoshop with CICP data embedded in an ICC profile are also able to be imported.
 

Can you tell which program did which? Feel to rank and critique. I will reveal the programs/settings I used to output these later... Obviously, save & view these outside of your browser... (they are numerically listed, it's just very light in the bottom right under the paragraph)

I can't think immediately of any technological reason for this, but it's a surprising result. And can explain why some people have different complaints regarding the appearance(s) of text in their exported documents with re: PNG... particularly if they rely on the matte setting versus adding a plain white background the old school method.

If I have a background with white, make another layer with text and export. The AA gives a light result... it's like it has more feathering...
If I decide to use Export Persona and export the layers separately, apply the white matte using a PNG preset, the AA is certainly much heavier (in appearance). Same with File>Export... with white bg layer turned off.

I was testing samples of Coverage Map and I notice the very heaviest setting was even heavier with the white matte. It looks pixelated.

I thought maybe it was down to the resample method perhaps in the way the white background layer was being applied to the text. But trying all methods, checking preview and floating images over one another and applying "Difference" Layer blend mode in PS, it showed no difference....

Here is an image I made with the differences in AA through both export methods... to be clear, the top result is "normal" Coverage map (Anti-aliasing curve) and the other two rows below are using a progressively steeper curve to give a more bold result... I show the differences on the right:


Indeed, I turned off Document>"Transparent background" in Photo to remove the checkerboard pattern and could see that the result of the AA in the text indeed does change when I enable/disable the white background in my document.

Edit: Changing Blend Gamma of the text layer to 2.2 resolves the disparity, it seems.

The export quality in Affinity Designer has not yet been improved. However, the problem of export quality has been known for years. Adobe delivers professional export quality and Affinity unfortunately does not. What use are new functions such as a spiral tool that I hardly ever use if the export quality is simply not right? Serif obviously doesn't realise how important flawless export quality is.

@Bit Arts Lovely points and it was nice to read these anecdotes. So much to think about in one post.


On the topic, I tend to work on high DPI illustrations that I sometimes translate to vector out of program... then export for laser cutters/assets for designers... and then output assets for websites. My images will tend to be very small scale... or rather large. I do also sometimes resize difficult images for a much smaller size and I will fill in/render the details back in by hand to fix any problem areas. I used to be able to do all of this in Photoshop, but have since learned with Affinity I need to do these touch ups in Clip Studio due to lack of a pressure-based opacity in the Brush tool. Edit: I point this out because I find that working both extremes of the scale can sometimes unearth different problems

Anyway, I also use tones and patterned texture a lot in my designs and when comparing both programs, the disparity in AA curves rather shows up pretty clearly when exporting the same curves at small sizes. An example I created:



Left: Illustrator     Right: Affinity

I post this example not to say whether I think one is worse or better. I post this to show that they are indeed a significant difference in terms of how AA/output is handled by both programs. I would say that Affinity's reads blurrier, as I've said before, because 1) it appears to utilize a linear AA "curve" which is effectively a subpixel black to transparent gradient that is more akin to "Outer Glow" or feathering and 2) thus the AA tends to be teeter out too fast compared to other implementations. Fonts that are not well hinted to begin with for screens at smaller point sizes or display type that has a lot of edge detail will be impacted the most. Of course it is distracting as well if we lay an image with heavy AA'ed type nearby a paragraph of text in a web browser rendered at high DPI... then the difference in quality will be much more apparent..

Other programs appear to apply a heavier weight to the edge details and this is perhaps because the AA/output curve is hand-tweaked by the designers of the program and thus gives a more "hinted" appearance (which increases clarity) on output, but also legibility for smaller points of type... the other thing to consider, how many fonts across the web were "tested" or even designed from within Adobe programs... therefore, their hinting algorithms/curves could be seen as something of a benchmark in some cases...

Perhaps this could be helped if Coverage Map were fixed and/or we had an option to control AA at a application setting/document level, or just having access to specialized AA for text... I care for this greatly, because for web, little details like this go a long way push an icon or a site's logo to the next level. Of course there is always SVG, but that is not always an option, especially if the text has artwork embedded within it...

Edit: Attached single samples:

Edit: clarity

Affinity Designer 2.2.1
Catastrophically poor colour reproduction of the CMYK colours black and grey. The colours are not displayed as shades of grey, but as unclean shades of brown. You can't work professionally with this! Colour profile used: PSO uncoated v3.

Well, this is an unexpected nuisance.

In this file there is a layer for corrections around the mouth (lots of food crumbs). The first image is as it should look, but when using Lanczos Non-Separable in File>Export for Resampling Method and exporting to a smaller size (in this case 33.3%), the lines are visible.
As it should appear:


Vs... File>Export[Resize 33.3%] with Lanczos Non-separable as the Resambple option with NO merged layers):


On one hand, this probably means that the individual layers are resampled using the method we chose in the File>Export window? This is good because we need this level of control. The downside?: It creates artifacting that can be seen around the edges of a layer that has transparency (so heal brush work and so on...) when using the sharpest option from what I can tell is Lanc Non-Separable for downsizing...

The "fix" is to use Merge Visible before exporting and that way there's no layers in which to create edges around... a bummer.

How much simpler can it get? Select the item you want, then hit Return!
How could it work if you just opened a Menu without first selecting the object? And wouldn't opening a Menu be more work than just hitting Return?

Now it has worked. However, I find it impractical that you cannot open menus such as the "Transform" menu.

I'm running Designer on Windows, and that online help is for Designer on Windows. Do like the instructions suggest and you will get that menu. I didn't know it existed, until I read the help about it, and tried it.
 

@Ash @debraspicher
 
I tried Inkscape 1.3, the PNG export is excellent. There is a great function in Inkscape when exporting to set the edge smoothing of the contours so that the contours are very smooth. This feature of Inkscape would be very desirable for Affinity 2.2. Inkscape is free and exports PNG and JPG in much better quality than Affinity Designer.

@LeeThorpe I also have a 27 inch monitor. Please look at the contours of the black letters on the screen. For example at 10 the 0. The outlines of the 0 are a bit pixelated. The smoothing could be better.