NoSi

Promised for version 1.9 Today I wanted to give it a try again and was heavily disappointed that after installing (licensed!) 1.10.4 webp is still missing despite announcement over two years ago. Everyone can decide for themselves, what is personally acceptable, but the advantages of webp creating small file sizes with surprisingly low quality loss can not be beaten by any other format currently. Especially, if you require transparency. Therefore, it is absolutely incomprehensible to me why it is still not possible to export webp. For me, it is thus still unusable, because if I need other programs anyway, so that webp comes out in the end, I can take the same. Which is regrettable, because I actually like AP quite well. But once I get involved with other programs: What do I need AP for then, and what's the point of looking at it over and over again?

Additional information: project could be opened with version 1.9.1 There, notifications about missing images came up → they were moved into another image folder. This could be fixed easily. This project could be accessed as expected. Project saved as package in explorer, it is linked to Affinity Photo Trying to open it leads to same effect: freezes on opening. Project saved with version 1.9.1 and copied into a backup folder ("project-repaired") Same as with package It seems as if 1.9.2 does not recognize missing images (no "repair box" opens as in version 1.9.1) Has additional problems – probably with text flow (??) because images are all contained in package that can be edited with version 1.9.1 Edit: Even a "repair" of Publisher does not solve this, except linking of package to Publisher is fixed now. After ~2 h of trying I have no further ideas. Possibly I have to return to version 1.9.1 to continue work. But it is an uncomfortable view to have possibly incompatibilities in the future (this project shall be continued over years), worst case scenario loss of complete work (again).

Trying to open a picture book project with 18 pages (in progress) where ~10 are filled with images and text renders the last active page, but Publisher can not be accessed. CPU / memory usage rises continuously, a "crashpad-handler.exe" is started, but no error log created. Application can be closed from task bar, but work seems to be lost. A temporarily created PDF from this file can be opened and edited (with lost page structure / master pages / text alignments, … ), other (much smaller) projects, too. Maybe notable: GEFORCE driver finds only Affinity Photo to optimize – even a manual search does not acquire Publisher to the list. Any hints welcome to repair this file (~40 h work)? Last work and access to this file was with the latest version 1.9.2.1035.

Did I mention that all frame operation shown in the video above can be done with any frame type? Besides vector this is pixel and text, and pixelframe used as char in a textframe: additinally, you can liquify this textframe but it is still editable (cursor down left below "image used") I'd say this is quite nice. Especially, that the as char embedded pixel image is liquified, too, and can be accessed as an editable pixel frame within the liquified text frame.

Hm. What then is this discussion about? But I believe, that you did not recognized, that this is ONE of many other options. Instead of describing I made a simple screen video that hopefully is more descriptive. EDIT: I had no dedicated plan how to do this, I am simply morphing a vector star in some ways spontaneously. Video solution is 640x480 upscaled here – originally the star is naturally smooth an clear . plmorph.mp4

As I said, I found and use a solution for years. I talked about → PhotoLine which has a free demo. Windows/Mac. If you are the only user, you are allowed to use PhotoLine on several computers, even a mixture of macOS and Windows, with one registration for 59 €. With it you can do something very special as well like that: Select a subgroup of vector points and transform them "layer like": (taken from https://www.pl32.com/pages/rnote.php )

I am using over years now a product where the developers have implemented this basic functionality in a shorter period of time than this discussion here lasts (since April until now and no end in sight) in a lively exchange with the community. However, for this product this discussion took place more than five years ago. And I am talking about software with a comparable price and update/usage policy to the Affinity products (and available on Win and Mac). This product is not perfect for me in any case. Therefore I bought AP and dealt with APh and AD. AP seems to be great for print publishing. AD was sorted out after minutes, APh was only bought because of its integration to AP which I wouldn't do anymore with the meanwhile acquired knowledge. But because of this integration I am following this thread. Meantime I realized that Affinity's clocks run much slower than those of other software companies. Which is very unfortunate, because a higher utility value of APh would simplify my work processes. In the product I use for all other design jobs, they have now started to improve the DTP functionality. Honestly, it would not surprise me if the gap to AP would be closed before the next major release of AP is available...

Why not? I am only talking about achievable results. If there are developers with no financial interest able to achieve them, it should be possible for those earning their money with it as well. And especially the last ones should be interested in listening to their customers instead of ignoring them over »a much longer time«. Reading this thread is telling (me) a lot about the interaction and relationship between customers and APh and AD developers/seller. »With the current state of feature set one simply has to use a different software«. I agree with this. The problem is: other software products improve as well which means that the gap between remains or grows if there is no effort to reduce it. If the gap becomes too wide, competition will become increasingly difficult for those behind.

Ok - still no idea where to access it but does not bother me because of alternatives:

https://www.vectorstyler.com/detailed/ I must say in advance that I have little knowledge of APh. I only use it in combination with APu for some basic image operations and I tried this briefly only. You may correct me with a detailed processing description. But when I am using ANY filter in AP text is NOT editable anymore. At least in version 1.8.5.703, which is - as far as I know - the most current one.

No. He meant after using the filter the editable vector object is turned into a raster graphic. Vector information is lost for any following action. It is quite useless to modify a vector graphic which is then only available as pixel graphi. Especially in AD this is a strong disruption of the creation process. You can not achieve a result iterative. To save a high qualitiy result you always have to restart from the point before AD alters vector into pixel. This is extremely time-consuming and annoying and the main reason (for me) against AD: I do not accept because as of quality and of processing reasons the forced media change during process by it. If free software such as INKSCAPE can do this, it's hard to understand why I should use a payment software that puts me dramatically behind in the basic tools of vector processing. From this point of view it is even negligible that INKSCAPE is slow in some processes or cumbersome to use. Substantially is that I can reach a target that is unattainable with AD.

^Why should I use Xara? »Since it has been YEARS for no vector warp (especially text)« I am using since years Photoline that is able to warp ANY object. Text (1) and images (2) are even warped fully editable: It is available for Windows and Mac and both versions are able to do that. Pricing compares to a single Affinity product but Photoline combines image and vector editing quite well.

Can you see the difference between 1 and 2? (1) is Affinity (from your picture). The object is rendered into the transformation the handles for object are always a rectangular box. That makes it impossible to deal exactly with the edges of the containing object. (2) Is a screenshot of Photoline. The object is transformed with the handles and can be returned anytime into original. The handles in touch with the object allow a perfect transformation. You may pick a single edge and transform to any shape. The following picture is object (2) after moving two edges without any aditional tool (only pressing ALT for "move single handle"): This is what I am talking about…

Ok. May be. What of these argues against »Free Transform, Perspective & Warp Tools« ?

Would you buy a car and pay an extra charge for the key? That's what it sounds like to me...

Unlike @ajpearceUK, I used my own computers for testing. I was driven by pure curiosity, because a few weeks ago the Affinity products were unknown to me. The "Affinity Publisher" aroused special interest in me, because it promised an added value compared to a product I am using usually. That is the case - that is why I bought it. However, I have been wavering with AP and AD. With the "Designer" it was very quickly clear that it was not interesting for me. There I miss especially the title-giving tools of this thread. In the end, the "Designer" - for me - offers too little vector functionality to make itself interesting compared to the tools I am using. Therefore I refrained from buying it. Nevertheless, after I worked with the "Publisher" for a few days, I decided to buy "Photo", which is much behind the product I am using normally. However, it offers some really handy functions that can be used to quickly improve and/or enhance images. To be clear: The only thing that was decisive for the purchase was the integration into the "Publisher" - this significantly shortens the distances for the pure editing of images, thus saving time. For the direct editing of images I have tried it a few times, but honestly - for me - especially in the area of import and export "Photo" lacks functionality, which could qualify it for more than a "simple and fast accessible image editor for Publisher". In any case, it is worth mentioning that all Affinity products can be easily installed and "cleanly" uninstalled under Windows. The working speed of the "Publisher" is very impressive, even on a slightly older laptop (with Windows 10x64) smooth working is possible. Very convincing. Here, "Photo" can also score points, as long as it's about the simple "one-click functions" - which (see above) are very practical and convenient in combination with the "Publisher". I will "stay tuned" expecting the things to come. I have learned over the years that things need their time to improve. Since I have no pressure because of alternatives, the Affinity products are definitely worth watching, if only to keep a back door open...

I can. But in compare to you I do not abuse this thread for advertising this product. If you tend to use multiple programs, no one will prevent you from doing so. Those who want webp as a direct output of AP aim for a different way of working.

You are aware of the title of this thread "WebP in Affinity Photo" ? I'm sure by now all readers of this thread know that you are an ardent admirer of XnViewMP. Your missionary zeal in honor, but this is - according to the headline - about something else. I would really appreciate it if you would respect that.

One reason we can discuss online here is that deep in the past someone came to the conclusion that there should be development in transporting information. Thus the idea was born printing information written on stones on paper instead of carrying the stones. (…) The best editor will vanish if it ignoring changes outside, which belong to it's "core" targets: sharing results.

Call me "old-fashioned" but I belong to a generation of forum users who consider it a matter of respect for the lifetime of others to at least skim a thread before posting a comment. I was brought up by forums that punish repetitions by deleting them without notice. I think this is questionable, but it helps when it comes to seriously advancing a matter (or at least wanting to).

To be honest I do not bother about resource budgets – because it is not my part to decide this. But I can see that the decision to implement webp was made by the development team. Which could be because "core function" is in the eye of the beholder. Or simply a question of relevance.

… and if you have a hammer you can punch a screw into the wall, too. Are we talking about "workarounds" or "solutions" ?

I think all of us know that. This thread is not discussing about limitations but pushing them.

This is probably the best way to allow implementation of "temporary formats". It could be a general solution for import and export for all file formats in the future. This is what I called "modular concept". I agree that the current presentation of export formats requires maintenance beyond adding some code.

If you read the contributions here in the thread carefully, you may notic that a. this a.) was sufficiently mentioned and b.) objectively is no useful contribution to the topic. If you don't care that you have to change the tool every time you want to create a common format - good for you! However, as the thread clearly shows - from my point of view - quite a lot of people simply see things differently – what is being talked about here.