Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JimmyJack

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

835 profile views
  1. @sumneuron If you work the other way around you can do what you're looking for. Instead of using the text to mask the image, place the image as a child of the text. This affords you two things both without having to touch the layers panel: 1) you have direct access to the text with one on-canvas click. 2) with a double click(s) you can drill down to the child(ren).
  2. While yes, a Bitmap can be a specific file type with the .BMP extension, in this case "bitmap" means any (afaik) file that is only raster info. i.e. jpg, png, tiff, gif...... etc (HA! etc should be a file type ). You can see in the first GIF above that I used a JPG. So....You don't need to make one. Just use the the texture image you have. I'm quite certain it will qualify. But as a side note, I'd just like to point out that the technique to fill multiple disjointed (layer-wise) objects will work with all the other options in the gradient file dropdown list too... As well as the regular fill/stroke panel. The above is specific to imagery.
  3. @sumneuron did the file help? Here are two GIFs. 1st is how to create it and 2nd is the different ways of moving elements I was referring to.
  4. Here ya go. With one, or all, of the image filled objects selected, take a look at the gradient tool and it's context toolbar. (I changed to image because the other made the file fairly massive) Gotta run out. But can do a quick vid showing what I mean about the different moving techniques later. various layers fill.afdesign
  5. @sumneuron (et al) Select all the elements and use the Bitmap fill option in the Gradient tool. (You might have to nudge a handle to get it to recognize the area as the sum of all the parts. Otherwise it might want to resize the fill to fit each shape individually.) If you want to move a shape/shapes after the fill without moving the background (a la "lock children") use the node tool. Yes this means that shape objects will need to be converted to curves and you will loose the individual shape parameter options. The move tool will move a shape with the image.
  6. Did all that. Only fractional result was merging anything down into teal. That leads me to believe that teal was most likely (unwittingly) resized somewhere along the line... maybe changed from 510 to 511 in transform panel (?). I made my own 511 and everything is fine. I suggest you make a new 511 and see what happens.
  7. and.... Have you not read the posts in this thread? It's the resizing/scaling that triggers the problem. Odd/even values are irrelevant to what I'm/we're talking about here. As well as small into large or large into small. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your small/big even/odd experiment. Is it that blurring happens even withOUT resizing? That's even worse. (I can't make that happen). RIGHT!!! Finally. (and that's just one part of it....)
  8. No. Yes This is the point. Rasterizing changes the result. BUT, without rasterizing...... Attached: Two layers each 72 dpi. Document 72 dpi (not that it should matter, imo). Merge black into teal. See what happens. Why on earth would the hight and width both be fractional afterwards? (rhetorical question) Exactly! with love: example.afphoto
  9. @GabrielM Thank you! I've tested the pants off of this so if you need anything else, please don't hesitate. I also just want to make sure you know I'm on Mac... so this is a universal issue eve though I ended up reply to a PC thread. Which brings me to the last thought: Is it too much to ask to haul this back out of the "Solved" section until re-solved? All my stuff was done in the MAS version. I only mentioned the Beta because I couldn't open Walt's files. Now that it's in the Dev's hands, I don't think I need to keep on with example files... The point has been taken.
  10. I can do that. But not at the moment. Okay. I'm not sure which file I should be looking at. Regardless, I need to install the latest beta I guess. I can do that. But not at the moment.
  11. What? Please try these things first. It doesn't matter. Multiple by 4 if you want. Or use a square. I moved the sides individually to keep it pixel perfect, because resizing this particular rectangle proportionally would leave partial pixels. Again, try it. Use anything you want. Use two boxes 400 px separated by 100 px. Shrink one down to 100 px (still separated by 100 px). Merge. Why is the resulting layer 601 px high? If you don't think this has large implications for imagery, I don't know what to say.
  12. I'd like to see that. None of that matters. All that matters is if the PIXEL layer to be merged into has been resized. Your file with resized red rectangle. Still pixel perfect. Now try and merge. merge visible_jj.afphoto
  13. Dear @GabrielM By saying the above you imply that if a layer's position and or dimensions are integer numbers then all is well. This is not true. The problem is not exclusive to non-pixel aligned/partial pixel objects. ANY pixel layer, even a pixel perfect layer, that is not in it's exact creation size will affect a merge. Yes rasterizing will force a merge to work, but there is no way of knowing by the numbers if it's needed. So that means, unless you can keep track of what you've done to perhaps dozens, or more, objects, every single pixel layer, pixel aligned or not has to be rasterized first?? Pixel perfect. This is by design? (the mp4 compression is a little much.... but you will see) (info panel is set to show 3 decimal places) (imho this is just the tip of the iceberg here. There is more to discuss.) ezgif-2-3893364b5e0e.mp4 @danmerey I get you.
  14. Pixel aligned/whole pixel objects can also blur. edit: Whoops, got here through a link. I'm on Mac. Blurring.
  15. How about the Remove Vignette filter? Under Filters Dropdown > Color. Destructive, but what the heck. Just do it on a copy.