StrawHousePig

Separations 1-bit bitmap support True grayscale Raster tracing Not one of my short wish list is part of the new features. This version is a pass.

Here's the thing though: As someone in production I would love it if my layout software was able to handle that in some capacity. Trap, bleed, imposition, creep, and while we're at it separations(!), process colors, solid colors, step-&-repeat, the list goes on. Some of these are must haves, some are a luxury. Just because the office newsletter isn't suitable for running on a 40 inch Speedmaster that doesn't mean its designer and most likely printer couldn't make use of simple built in booklet imposition. Speaking of, that Booklet Creator 2 works really well and does include creep that can be tweaked to your needs.

Why wouldn't they know? Too afraid to ask the publisher or the printer? Then don't use it and hope for the best like they already do. What happens to the second run if it is lighter? If you are unable to spec the job to the file accordingly or vice versa then again, do what you do now, wing it. Having run into a third booklet with "bleeds" in the last couple of weeks which need creep, I'm telling you it would be infinitely useful if it were available as part of the layout software, particularly as I said a margin where designers would know not to drop anything important too close to.

Holy simoleons that is a nice tool for the kit. Thanks very much. That said, creep accommodation should be a part of the design process not just the production process because you don't know what you're going to lose until it's lost. As a printer I can use my best judgement, but I shouldn't have to and, honestly, chances are it'll be automatic in software. Given that AFPUB supports independent page sizes the next step seems obvious, although a "creep margin" would be best.

So I can turn it off. 😛 There is a preference to capitalize new sentences, however, and although I realize this software is geared toward article writing as much as layout, for layout a new line does not mean a new sentence. Just one of the things I tend to forget. I do appreciate "\.[space]+?[[:alnum:]]" being capped, though.

Yep. Screenclip attached, as well as a screenshot of Acrobat (yes version 7, don't @ me I still output film to a PostScript 2 imagesetter 😛 ) which shows the extra added bit to the exported PDF. I did not include any About windows, but it is Affinity Publisher 1.9.3 on macOS 10.13.6 I am of course open to the possibility this is something I'm doing wrong, but it's not at all obvious to me if so. export-import dimensions trimmed.mp4

Seems to only affect tertiary fractions or finer (e.g., 3-5/8 (i.e., 3.625)). I only noticed now since I don't think I've exported a document that wasn't a US standard size, or not some eighth or sixteenth of an inch. I would really appreciate if this could be added to the list. This can quickly make stepping objects a nightmare. I can only imagine trying to deal with it if I had to send files out. 😳

Bingo! Speaking for myself, of course. YMMV

The reason I ask is I opened a 600 ppi scan PDF to convert to bitmap and "400" was the max option other than "best guess" or whatever the wording is in the import dialog. But I went ahead and tried to generate my file for production and you know how that went, so I wound up here. Later I used "Resize Document" and it does work, but I'm not happy with the dithering (or lack of) done during resample. It's not wrong, but Preview (macOS) does a nicer job of that. I'm OK doing that. It's fine for digital, but analog production will not work with that. I'll have to whip out GraphicConverter or something. Oh snap, further testing before posting I see you can save a "palletized" PNG as Black&White that (for my purposes) seems to work as a 1-bit bitmap. Waiting on my film to develop...

I'm sorry, but how is this done? Photo maxes out at 400 as far as I can tell. At any rate, found this thread searching for affinity photo high dpi bitmap after discovering this limitation today. So add +1 for high res 1 bit image support, pls!

Recreated it using text to curves into separate files, one for solid, one for a tint of same PMS. These were made using Designer. This time both were rasterized, which I cannot fathom why. I suppose it's possible I had used an Adobe PDF earlier. I don't have all my art on me right now, though. I would call this a bug, because the PDF export dialog clearly states that "Nothing will be rasterized" and that is just not always true. Also, how is it that "passthrough" doesn't pass through and "interpret" seems as though it does? Could be the thumbnail used as a placeholder is what is actually being passed?

I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature (as there is a workaround), but it is entirely unexpected behavior. I have a document that when exported to PDF, no matter the settings (including "Rasterize: Nothing"), would rasterize one of two PDF objects placed into the afpub doc. Neither is inside another frame, there are zero layers effects in the Publisher doc or the placed objects, both were exported from Designer, both are placed as using the new "passthrough" attribute (FINALLY!! ), both are spot color (same profile, same as Publisher doc), the art in ONE of them is a tint of a single spot color common to the other PDF object. That is the one that gets rasterized. The workaround is to set that placed PDF to "interpret" rather than "passthrough." Which, if you are like me, seems completely opposite of what it's actually doing. Again, the only real difference that I can see is the tint of spot color. Yes it is a tint, not opacity. I don't want objects being flattened if they don't need to be. The reason this is important is once rasterized my RIP has no control over the color, in which I have many of the PMS colors calibrated how I like them to look (eg, better match of solid color). To be fair, this is the first and only occurrence I have seen of this, and I haven't tried to recreate it with other art. I may attempt to later tonight, but I thought this may be useful info to some.

InDesign aside, which is not that helpful a recommendation because despite being the premier option we (or I'm certain most) are here to avoid it, what options offer the layout capability we have with Affinity Publisher and includes data merge? No *office suite cuts it, that's for sure. Genuinely curious as I'd love to check them out.

Untitled.mp4

I searched to see if this was reported, but maybe I did not use the correct terms. Apologies if this is already known. My objects in question were PDF. Steps to reproduce: Place object as linked. Crop object. Save and close document. Rename original linked item in Finder (can also be a different object). Open Affinity Publisher document. Use Resource Manager to replace missing object with renamed one. Recoil in horror because you just replaced a few dozen items before noticing this behavior. The items I replaced were the same size as the replacement and were not scaled, only cropped. Of note: If you choose "Yes" to find a missing linked object from the initial warning alert window the object will not be scaled. Not sure how helpful that is with multiple replacements. *MacOS 10.13.6 in case that matters

Another "Me too, please and thank you!" I need it for numbering forms that would otherwise be crash numbered.