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 have been telling, from the very beginning, when Affinity Photo was still in beta, that masks are simply greyscale images and, so, everything that is possible to do with a greyscale image should also be possible to do with masks (painting, smearing, dodging, burning, applying filters, etc) I was told that, internally, in Affinity Photo, masks are not really greyscale images. But, even if they are not, the average user (and even the professionals) assume that masks are simply greyscale images, because that is how they are displayed and that is how all applications that deal with masks present them. The main thing preventing me to work almost 100% of the time in Affinity Photo, instead of using Photoshop is exactly the way Affinity Photo deals with alpha channels and additional (spare) channels. It is so much more complicated and limited than with Photoshop. Photoshop deals with additional channels (and that includes alpha channels) in a such straightforward way that is a real pain assuming that I can do the same with Affinity Photo... and I can't I even created a few videos showing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6H_8gjX-eI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIN9HYB5Mwc

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?

It's not just those characters. All characters with diacritics, inside a plain .txt file come out wrong.

Yes, the same happens here. And, in several latin languages (portuguese, for example, that is my native language), most words have diacritics.

I'm also looking forward to know more about Affinity Publish and try a beta. Adobe InDesign is one of the best pieces of software from Adobe (Photoshop too... Illustrator is not so good, in my opinion). Although I love using InDesign, from what I know about using Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo, I know I will completely ditch InDesigner in favor of Affinity Publish. So, please, provide us with more information, please

When will we see it? Yes, yes... I know... when its ready

Back in my old FreeHand days, when a color was added to the palette, the default name would be something like 100c67m37y80k if the color was defined as CMYK or something like 150r208g90b if the color was defined as RGB. We should have a way to change the names of any selected swatch to the color components, automatically. Just add a "Name colors as components" option to the swatches menu.

Actually, GraphicConverter is a misleading name. I bought GraphicConverter several years ago and it is much more than simply a file converter. Just being devils advocate and trying to keeps this as correct as possible

Actually, it is like the Layer Effects, but with localized application, instead of affecting the whole object. And, with optional fallof and shape definition. If applied in between layers/objects, they would affect all layers/objects below and within the defined shape. If applied as a child of a layer/object, they would only affect that layer/object.

Having realtime, virtual deformers, that don't really destroy geometry but simply deform it when they are turned on is a great concept. We could have deformers for: - Roughing - Smoothing - Thickening and narrowing lines - Curling Etc...

Nitroman is an amazing developer but has the funniest accent

Well, english is NOT my native language. Don't know if it is good enough

Here is an example of the MoGraph concept: https://youtu.be/xChEPBbd7f0