Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

iconoclast

Members
  • Posts

    1,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iconoclast

  1. Yes, that happens to me too. Not sure if it is a bug. But you can easily fix the problem by selecting the corner point where the problem exists, and then click on the button marked on my attached screenshot.
  2. So why don't you simply use Illustrator, if it doesn't harras you with convenient features like a guide manager? Or just ignore the guide manager and drag lines from the rulers and move them to the vertical or horizontal coordinate you want.Your choice. I can't see any problem there.
  3. What a discussion! Is it really worth it? The y-axis of a coordinate system is the vertical one, this is true. But what has this to do with guidelines? Seems that you still don't understand what guides are, or you don't want to understand. However, I'm afraid your carping will not have any effect. Don't think that all providers of graphics software will change this just for you and for confusing all other users.
  4. But this seems to be your verry personal problem, because, as I already said two times, all graphics programs call guides "vertical" if they are aligned vertical. and "horizontal" if they are aligned horizontal. If you want to measure a height or width, you should better take a look at the rulers. Guides could help you to fix the points on the rulers where the wanted height or width lies. But guides have no scales. So you will need the rulers for that.
  5. That is not really hard to understand. Your problem is that you only assess the guides for your purposes: measurement. But it is not compelling that a guide, you want to use for horizontal measuring, has to be horizontal. If you measure the groundplan of a house, you will strike stakes into the ground to set measurement points. And these stakes will normally stand vertical - even the area you want to measure is horizontal. In that case, the stake is just a boundary, an end point, for a line, just the same a s the guide is. Guides are no rulers. But you can use them to mark positions related to the rulers. But, of course, in that case you must use horizontal guides for vertical marks and vertical guides for horizontal marks. By the way just the same as you did in your video clip, as you made analogue pen lines related to a ruler.
  6. But what is your problem? Guidelines are universal tools. Not only for measuring, related to the rulers. So it is obvious to call them "horizontal" if they are horizontal, and "vertical" if they are vertical, no matter what you want to do with it. They are called as they are, not what you personally want to use them for in your special case.
  7. Horizontal lines are called "horizontal" because they are aligned horizontal. Vertical lines are called "vertical" because they are aligned vertical. No matter what you use them for (for example, to measure a horizontal distance, you would use two vertical lines). But you can also use guides for different things. For example to snap selections to them. Every graphics program I know defines guidelines the same way as Affinity does. It would be verry confusing to call horizontal guidelines "vertical", I think, because, as I already said and everyone can see, they are aligned horizontal.
  8. Hi MdS! I suppose, you pressed the TAB-key. With it, you can blend out all panels of Designer at once. Just press it again.
  9. For a reliable impression of the quality of your image, you should always watch it unrotated with zoom factor 100%, so that the pixels of the image fit to the pixels of your screen.
  10. Hi Saanapix! Because you say that "The lines move, when zooming in and out...", I suggest that it could be a sort of interference pattern that results from the difference between the size of the pixels of your screen (screen resolution) and the size of the pixels of the image (image resolution). And even from its alignment. This would mean that these lines doesn't really exist (for example if you print the image out). In that case it would be an optical illusion. But I am not sure about that. Just an idea.
  11. The important point is the resampling (changing the quantity of the pixels of an image or a layer). You can load an image as an image file in Photo and enlarge it as you want, and it will not harm its quality, because the source file of the image layer hasn't really changed - as long as it is only linked in Photo. But at the moment you export the document with the image layer in it, even the image layer will be resampled. This is similar in Publisher and even InDesign and Photoshop and other programs. It is a fine thing, because the pixels will only resampled once, but there will be an (even smaller) loss of quality too, at the end. This is a verry important point, everyone who works with image editing should know, I think.
  12. Yes, I understand that, but if there are pixels in this "Smart Object", and you enlarge it, the pixels will be resampled at last, and that means that even the image layer will lose some quality - one time(!), while a normal pixel layer would lose quality every time you transform it, before you export the final document. The loss of quality for enlarged image layers happens only at the moment of the export and will be much smaller in most cases because of this. If it wouldn't lose quality at all, it must be witchcraft. I suppose that technically, the keywords in this case are "linked" and "embedded". An image layer is only linked into your document, while a pixel layer is embedded. Because of this, an image layer can't really be manipulated in Photo, because it is not really opened in it. Edit: To prove my hypothesis, just drag an image from your file manager into an opened image in Photo and then move the image file in your file manager to another place. You will get a message in Photo, that tells you, that the source of the image layer has changed.
  13. Hi Sahiiil! Did you do this all on the same computer? For me, it looks like on the computer you work with Designer, this font isn't installed. So you would need a font substitute that contains all special characters you used in your document. Otherwise they can't be handled and placeholders like those question marks appear. But I'm not sure that this is the point here. Anyway, to convert the characters into curves (*.svg) should solve this problem. But the text will not be editable anymore.
  14. The important point is that even image layers consist of pixels (zoom into an image layer and you will see). And if you enlarge pixel images they will always become more pixelated (without interpolation) or less sharp (with interpolation). The advantage of image layers, as far as I understand it, is that the image layers will only be resampled once - at the moment you export the document.
  15. Wenn das in Photo 1.8 nicht so war, wird es daran wohl auch eher nicht liegen. Aber dann bin ich mit meinem Latein in diesem Fall leider auch am Ende. Ich habe bei mir bisher nur bei wenigen Pinseln leichte Verzögerungen feststellen können. Über das Splitten von Bilddateien und dergleichen Lösungswege habe ich früher auch nachgedacht, weil mein alter Rechner so 'ne lahme Ente war. Aber das funktioniert auch nicht so richtig. Und Spaß macht das natürlich schon gar nicht. Eher kann man dann schon darüber nachdenken ob man Bilder wirklich so groß malen muss. Denn wenn sie z.B. nur als normale Poster gedruckt werden sollen, braucht man gar nicht so eine hohe Auflösung (für's Web schon gar nicht). Poster sind ja dafür gedacht aus einer gewissen Entfernung betrachtet zu werden. Daher können die Dots, also die Punkte des Druckrasters auch größer sein als z.B. bei Fotos in einer Zeitschrift. Bei Großplakaten, wie man sie z.B. auf Bahnsteigen bisweilen findet, sind die Dots schon ganz schön mächtig, wenn man sie mal aus der Nähe betrachtet. Also kann man dafür auch weniger Pixel auf einen Inch packen, sprich die relative Auflösung reduzieren (ohne Resampling) wodurch die Bildmaße in Millimetern größer werden. Manche Druckereien gehen da wohl auf bis zu 100 pixel per Inch runter. Ich habe mal in meiner Ausbildung gelernt, dass die Untergrenze bei 140 ppi liegt. Solche Notwendigkeiten sollte man aber im Einzelfall beurteilen. Und auch mit dem Drucker des Vertrauens besprechen. Für Fine Art Prints braucht man natürlich schon eine höhere Auflösung.
  16. Ich antworte jetzt mal aus Zeitgründen schnell auf Deutsch, da das auch Deine Muttersprache zu sein scheint. Obwohl das jetzt nicht so erschöpfend viel Information ist, klingt das erstmal ausreichend für mich. Obwohl das bei sehr großen Pinseln schon an der Grenze sein könnte. Grundsätzlich erfordert das Malen vieler Pixel natürlich mehr Rechenleistung als das weniger. Insbesondere wenn die Pinsel auch noch irgendwelche Zusatzfunktionen nutzen wie "Rotationsabweichung", "Flussabweichung", wechselnde Texturen usw. Sowas kostet alles Rechenleistung, weshalb komplexere Pinsel mitunter deutlich langsamer sind als andere. An meinem alten Rechner bin ich beim Malen auch regelmäßig verzweifelt, weil ich den Piselstrichen teils Minuten lang beim Aufbau zusehen konnte. Hast Du noch irgendwelche Prozesse nebenher laufen? Mediaplayer, Downloads, Internet-Browser? Das zieht natürlich alles mehr oder weniger Leistung ab. Hast Du in den Einstellungenbei "Performance" die "Hardware-Beschleunigung" aktiviert. Das bringt meines Wissens nicht immer Vorteile, aber versuchen könnte man es. In manchen Fällen könnte es aber auch die Ursache für Crashes sein, soweit ich bisher mitbekommen habe. Viel mehr kann ich zu dem Thema wohl auch leider nicht beitragen. Ich habe mich nur eingemischt, weil die Affinity-Leute momentan viel zu tun haben und es mit Hilfe von der Seite daher wohl etwas dauern könnte.
  17. But don't ask Mark Twain, who wrote among others an essay called "The Awful German Language". In some points I really understand what he meant.
  18. Danke! Einer meiner klassischen Englisch-Fehler, die ich so lange hartnäckig wiederholen werde, bis alle hier einknicken und nur noch auf Deutsch posten. 😄
  19. He means the capability characteristics of your computer (Leistungsmerkmale des Computers): processor, RAM, Graphiccard...
  20. I think, the point is that the image layer will only loose quality once, while a pixel layer will be resampled and loose a bit of its quality every time you transform it (scaling, rotating, perspective warp...). Even the image layer will be resampled relatively to the resolution of the document it is placed in. But, as I said, only once. Just as Old Bruce confirmed.
  21. I already heard about this, but it is not clear to me how this works. For example, if I have an image with a resolution of 2000x3000 pixels, If I resize it, for example by the factor 2; how can it keep it's quality? If it wont be resampled, the pixels must be stretched, what would result in a loss of quality (a pixelated image). If it would be resampled, it would loose its sharpness. So how does this work? Or is it an effect that saves the quality only in case of repeated scaling?
  22. As far as I understand, the basic point is that image layers are none-destructive - you can't manipulate them as image layers - and they cause much less file sizes. So if you need to insert a layer that must not - or even shall not - be modyfied, you can better insert it as an image layer.
  23. About the difference between image and pixel layers: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/tutorials/photo/desktop/video/365012457/
  24. An idea: did you use the Gaußian Blur of the Layer Effects? This is the only way for me to reproduce your problem. In fact, this effects on the whole layer. You should better use the Live Filter effect.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.