rui_mac

I don't mind if the interpolation will only occur in the final stage (printing or exporting). But we should have a way to define individual interpolations, per image, and not a "one option serves all".

The best and most versatile way would be: - Have a document DPI (as it already has) to define the global resolution of the document and at what resolution should the images be resampled when printing or exporting. - Have a global interpolation method, as a document default. - Allow for each image to have an interpolation override. - Use the global or individual interpolation method of interpolation when a layer is Rasterized.

I know that images should not be resampled destructively. It would be just a matter of display, print and exportation. As it is now, it seems like a bilinear or bicubic method is being used for display/print. And I do know that I can set the interpolation method of resampling when exporting. But, it would be nice to be able to set a "bypass" method for individual images. For example, I write software manuals and I use many screen captures of dialogs and icons. Sometimes, I prefer to have those images enlarged with the Nearest Neighbor method, so that the image doesn't become "soft".

When bitmaps are placed and scaled (up or down) in Publish, what is the interpolation method used? Also, what interpolation method is used when we Rasterize a bitmap layer? Sometimes, I would like to have a bitmap scaled using the Nearest Neighbor mothod. Other times, Bilinear or Lanczos. It would be great to be able to define a default method for all bitmaps in a document and, also, an individual setting, in the Resource Manager.

Although my suggestion is not for that specific problem, I do think that it could help, somehow. Having more control in how each layer is displayed/rasterized/deformed is always good.

Each pixel layer should have an individual interpolation parameter so that each layer could be set to Nearest Neighbour, Bilinear or Bicubic (and, if possible, more advanced methods). This way, different interpolation modes could be defined for each layer, as its size changes, or is deformed. Sometimes, "softer" modes are required. And, sometimes, a more "pixelated" version is required. This should be a parameter for all pixel objects, in Designer, Photo and Publish.

Instead of simply displaying a frame for the bleed, the area inside the bleed and outside the page should display as a dimmed version of the elements that spread out. Like this mockup I did.

Great to know that. I will wait for the next betas, then.

I know they are the same now. But what if the next betas tell me the same thing? Because I do have the official versions. They were copied back, instead of re-downloaded from the Apple Store. Could this be the culprit?

I had to reformat my Mac a few days ago. I backed up everything and, after reformating, copied back everything to my Mac. That included the official versions of Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo, and also de beta versions. The official versions work fine, but the beta versions tell me that an official version needs to be present for them to work. Well, I have all applications inside the Applications folder. What can I do to make the betas work also?

I liked the video comparison. However, I missed the mention to the ease of creating dynamic boolean operations in Affinity, in contrast with Illustrator. Or the ease of creating maskings in Affinity, when compared with the masking in Illustrator. Although lacking a few things, I do prefer using Affinity. I never liked Illustrator very much. I used to love FreeHand, though, before being killed by Adobe. I look forward to watch the comparison between Affinity Photo and Photoshop. I find myself using Affinity Photo more and more, but whenever I need to work extensively with masks and alpha channels in general, I go straight to Photoshop. It is so much easier and intuitive. Alpha channels/masks operations in Affinity Photo are just too cumbersome.

+1

Oh Take a look at this. It was AMAZING!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=866U1YKSpwo

Is there any way to change an item that is a Master Page item, into an editable item, from within a page that has a Master Page applied? For example, I create a Master Page item that is a centered framed text box that is formatted but has no text or just a placeholder text. In InDesign, if I recall correctly, I could Command+click (or Command+double click) and the element that was part of the Master Page would become a regular page item, ready for editing. Is this possible?

Will it be possible to link text between framed text and text on a path? Is it already possible and I'm just not getting how it is done?