KarlLegion

I kind of agree. Affinity puts the Social Media presets under Web category instead of Device category. The resolution is supposedly device independent. The 144dpi is unnecessary and confusing. It doesn't match the default 72dpi 1x export. I too wonder why the presets are set at 144dpi 🤔 Also, the 1x, 2x, 3x scaling is non-intuitive. No one knows the meaning of them without looking at the help page. It's confusing for new users. Who will expect their artwork to get down sampled when they choose "1x" to export? Agree. When choosing 1x, the export should be 1:1. If a user needs to down sample, it should be a 0.5x option instead. But interestingly, there is an exception. For some reason, if your document is set in "non-standard" dpi (i.e. 32, 73, 300...) and are exported in slices with 2x/3x scaling, your exports will just double/triple the dimensions... So, users have to adjust their expectation for their exports when using "non-standard" dpi. It's a bad design, not a bug though...

@EzbazeThe keyword is "Add". You don't have to convert the ellipse to a curve. After "Layer->Geometry->Add", the ellipse will convert to a curve by itself and the bounding box will reset the rotation to 0 degree. Of course, by doing this you will no longer be able to edit the ellipse as a geometric shape.

Hi @Ezbaze, for It seems it's possible now with v2.1 beta's crop tool improvements If I understand it correctly, you can pixel selection your ellipse then use crop tool to clip the canvas. Hope it helps.🙂

Hi @Ash, happy to see the improvement. But for the dragging function, isn't the Ctrl on Mac not used? Is it possible to use it as a modifier for "paste inside/paste as content" when using move tool?

Some notes to add according to my test. pixel layers and image layers are affected (vector objects not) The fringe disappears once the objects are rescaled to twice its original width/length and beyond Please correct me for any different findings

@NotMyFault First, my sincere apology for making you feel offended. I didn't attack you and didn't mean to. "Why don't you try it by yourself before making any comments?" How can it be an attack? I just defended. Defended you from sabotaging my post. Sabotaging by first off giving a vague and confusing respond. (You used "trouble" and "bug report", it sounded like you agreed that's a bug. Confusingly, your tone suggested me don't bother to report it. Seemed unsupportive.) Secondly, you gave out an information supposed to be right but came out to be wrong. It showed that, squarely, you didn't do a test.(So, I was just saying the fact. Please be humble.) You're just like an amateur giving wrong medicine to a patient. It did more harm than help. You just tried to close my case and suggested other readers to overlook the core issue, twice in a row. I don't want to say anything mean. I just kind of get annoyed and run out of patience with you. If you really want to help, please don't give "false information" to confuse people. When I say "false information", I mean I know it's not your intention to give "false information". (It's not necessarily to be "false", maybe just a misunderstanding waiting Affinity to explain) But you're still responsible, because you didn't do what you should have done: TESTING. Even the Help is official, it still needs to be tested. It's basic, if everything works as intended, then no bugs should be concerned. Ironically, you're here. So you know bugs can be anywhere. But still, you didn't do a test. Intentional or not, you're sabotaging my post. So, I stop you. "specification"? Hopefully everything works as intended. Please be practical, don't just say "it supposed to work". Instead, tell me "I tried, it works." or "I tried, but I can't recreate the problem." Sometimes when I encounter something doesn't work as intended, I look up the Help, but not always, like this time I didn't. Because I'm practical, I can tell the obvious behavioral difference between Noise and other filters. There is probably a bug among live filters, one or another. But you, looked up the Help because you didn't do a test. Should you have tested it by yourself, you didn't need to check the Help. Did you realized I explicitly mentioned "Noise filter" instead of "Live filters" in the title? If you had thought more carefully and been more sensitive, you would have an idea about testing out if the Noise is different from other filters. Wait! "which isn’t a bug"? Did you just changed your stance? Or... I'm confused.🤔I remember you said, So, it's a "trouble" but not a "bug"? Is it a puzzle? It's so vague I can't understand... You didn't mention other bugs. Or maybe you meant this one So... How is it helpful for anything? I got nothing... It's neither a workaround nor an explanation for any bugs. What did you suppose to say? People are not stupid. They can see how simple the setup is. If you can't recreate the bug from my screenshot, than I doubt what you capable of. "other factors like so, gpu, driver etc"? Come on! Please don't say something obvious. It won't make your excuse more valid, instead it just makes me feel sorry for you. If you are wrong, be humble and apologize. At least you earn some respect. It's obvious, if you couldn't recreate the problem, for saving your pride, you would have mentioned it in the first place, loud and clear, "It's not a bug! I told you!" So obviously you can recreate the problem. You knew the specs doesn't matter. You know I know you mentioning those spec things is just an attempt to save you own face. Please be generous. I feel sorry for you. Again, I didn't attack you. I'm just defending from your sabotaging. You feel hurt because I'm solid and I reflected the truth. You know that you're wrong so you feel hurt. You're hitting a solid wall so you hurt yourself. You shouldn't have accused me for attacking you because of your low self esteem. Respect is not free. You earn it. Anyway, you received my apology. BTW, glad to know that I'm in your ignore list. So, you don't sabotage my posts again.

Only if you did start off at full pixels... So right now it's not ideal unless the bug is fixed. Turning it off at least letting you realign those misaligned pixels. Of course it's up to you, I'm just try to help with some suggestions. Thanks for your reply anyway.🙂

Ha, then that's interesting. If the noise filter had no bugs, then it means every other live filters have bugs. You can try it with any other filters, none of them passes through the effect, only the Noise does (kind of, see below). Even if it's intended to pass through, the passthrough effect shouldn't have been partly effective. Look at my screenshots, it's not full strength on objects outside the group. My description is as simple as one line. My screenshots highlighted the group with bounding box. You can simply recreate it by yourself. You don't need my file. Why don't you try it by yourself before making any comments? I did test before submitting the bug report. I knew the behavior is not consistent among different live filters. IDK if the help doc means what it says, or is just a misleading. I knew there is a bug one way or the other. Even you said Still you didn't agree it is a bug? I'm confused🤔 If one design always cause trouble to users, then it should be counted as a bug, right? (Still IDK what trouble you're talking) Sorry, I really don't get what you're suggesting from your first reply. Maybe you're trying to provide a workaround, but it's not quite supportive😕I just want the bug get logged unless it's already done before by other users. Anyway, look at this one. Actually the Noise doesn't pass through but extends to the alpha (so I think the problem is the missing of "Preserve Alpha") (It also proves that it doesn't work as you thought, somehow doesn't match the help doc😕) live filter bug.afphoto Also the rendering on the canvas doesn't match the output (unchecking OpenCL doesn't help)

Hi @m888, I think it's not related to the pixel alignment because all coordinates are integral from your example. I suspect it's the issue on the image object. My theory is, image objects are treated as vector objects which have a "Viewbox" bounding the pixels. It seems to me that there are invisible thin transparent edges between the boundary and the pixel. As long as you rescale the object, those edges stretch. I can reproduce it but it only happens in Photo but not Designer. So, it's probably a bug. You can report it in a separate post. Hi @patrick_h_lauke, may I ask what's the reason for you to have the "Move by Whole Pixels" always turn on (I saw from your every screenshots)? I know its not related to your bug, I'm just curious. Shouldn't it be an obstacle to your pixel perfect work?

I knew I can set the blend mode to "normal" for the workaround. But since it's default for every new Groups having "Passthrough" as the blend mode and it shouldn't have worked this way. So, it's a bug. Do you suggest that it's a bug or not? Or did anyone report similar bugs before and logged?

A group masked with noise filter will have the effect partly passed through the layers underneath. (Also rendering problem on the canvas)

My maths is the same. But for vector imports, it's a standard 72dpi, fixed... Only one unit can be used in a job, mm or inch, even that's a mix of bitmaps and vectors... And only resolution options are 100, 250, 500, 1000dpi... So it's only right if it really has a 254dpi option for me...

I can't agree with it. It's just up to people's preference, including their needs and convenience. For example, for average people, when they sent their photos for casual printing, almost no one will care about the dpi-dimensions relationship. They just set the print size and fit mode then print. So, working in pixels is sufficient enough, for people's convenient. But when people want to preview/predict the outcome of their prints, they need to work in the physical output size and resolution from the screen. Also for commercial printings, you may need to set your files for 1:1 printing. So we need to work our files in physical units. In this case, it's for the needs. But again, even we don't provide a 1:1 file, the print shop can still work them out, the difference is just few more conversations for clearing things out. So, at the end of the day, it's also for convenience. The dpi-dimension concept is for the working principle of printers, luckily the driver will handle it well. While for the need of 1:1 printing (and use physical dimension units), the reason is valid, however It will be just fine for us even we work in pixels. Please be flexible. In this fast and ever-changing world, don't say "you should always" so easily. Laser cutting, 3D printing, CNC routers, AI graphic, deep learning, optical logic gates, quantum computing, RSV-influenza-COVID tripledemic... So many we don't know and even more is coming! Please be open-minded and be humble to learn. Flexographic, lithographic, rotogravure, screen printing, pad printing... How much of these have you heard about or familiar with? Do you know how they implement digital technology in the printing production? You are not in the printing industry, why do you talk like you know everything? For my case, working in pixels is for my need. I do everything for every processes. I know my work the best. I can tell the difference between good and bad results. Who know better than me for my work? While a good chef use a drill as a food blender. You don't tell him "you should always use a proper blender. Drills are for drilling things." A wise person don't judge the method, only judge the result. Please don't be ignorant and arrogant.😕 Bitmaps are not like vectors, as long as the print scale is 1:1, we get what we see (of course it depends on the machine and substrate quality). If it's unsharp on the screen, it's also supposed to be unsharp on the print. For my laser engraving, those unsharp edges are half-value pixels. Half-value pixels are half-power beams. Considering the engraving depth is not proportional to the beam output. Reduced beam power may lead to some materials have depth significantly reduced, or even have the surface just scorched. So, for designs with small detailed textures, those half-value pixels can change the product from textured to plain. Sometimes the product is not just for show like prints, they can be a tool. Take rubber stamps as an example, those unsharp pixels can make thin line text of a stamp unstampable (Do you remember I said the smallest detail can be as small as few pixels?) It just use me few seconds on it because I'm not converting everything. I only need to convert the object contour (only 1 object per project) to pixels from the dimension reference. I can't believe I have to repeat it the third time... The file is a work-in-progress... And I said it in my last comment, the canvas is destined to be clipped... Look at the things I already worked on - the objects... If I didn't work in pixels, how can I create full-pixeled objects?😕 It suggest nothing... Every printers also only accept physical units...😕 Just like I mentioned above, average people don't care about the physical dimensions when sending their photos to print. Are they doing all wrong?😒 Please remember, bitmap exports are destructive, they're not like vectors. Once they get fractional pixels, after exported, those pixels will shift and become fractional value full pixels. You can't just input your intended dimensions and get those half-value pixels reconstructed back to full-value. It's no advantages in quality when exporting in physical size. Actually I don't know what my laser software is suggesting, it's quite ridicules. It doesn't accept "real" 1:1 bitmap import. I mean, the 1:1 input is 254dpi for bitmaps, fixed. But interestingly it doesn't support 254dpi engraving... So, the dpi setting for my bitmaps are useless... At the end of the day, I still have to resize my images... It's true that pixels are meant for screen, but the value it represent is valid for printing/engraving. By checking on the pixels, I can predict the engraving quality. Working in pixels give me better prediction than working in physical units (pixels won't shift after export). While doing pixel-perfect is easy, nothing wrong and getting better result, why not pixel-perfect? It's not an obsession, it's a good practice and useful. In contrast, if I can get better result by working in pixels, easily, but insist to work in physical units instead, just because someone tells me it's a conventional way for creating printing/lasering images, then it's what we call obsessed, and also stubborn and stupid. Why do you say that I "blame" the software for bugs? People usually blame something when any loss is caused. But for me, I didn't say the "bug" (don't be sensitive, just to make things simple) caused any damages to me, not even once. What I did was just reporting the "bug" (like anyone does), pointing out some findings (descripting the nature of the "bug"), making some arguments with others (because someone had objections but didn't explain the unusual phenomenon), making some suggestions for an improvement (so constructive), but I did never blame the "bug". I assume what you said "blaming the software for bugs" is actually meaning "bug reporting". You know what? No one knows what they don't know, no one knows everything. So you can't say "But you need to learn the difference between screen and print" when people report "bugs". Are you suggesting no one should report any bugs, until they know everything? It's nonsense... Also, all the stuff you talked about svg is nothing related to "the difference between screen and print". I don't know what's the logic behind such comment... SVG rounding errors, I understand. But why suddenly you talk about print? I think I know their difference better than you. I used to work in 2 different companies in printing industry.😒 In contrast, screen and print have something in common, they both use "dots" to represent resolutions. When they see vectors, they all calculate and render the vector data to "dots". If their are any difference from input to output, it's only because vectors in between (dots>vector>dots). Considering your lack of example of usage of SVG and explanations of the working principles, seemingly ineffective formular causing unnecessary rounding, and all those invalid comments about printing, you are seemingly neither professional in SVG, maths nor printing technology... Considering the effort you did in your comments, it's not worth my challenge, but people can tell by reading... More invalid challenges won't make you look smarter... Please stop your ever-raising challenges or trying to explain something not you familiar with... I'm so tired to explain again and again and again... I have my own way to do my work and I know it's just fine... The topic is off too much... Please stop...🙏

Thanks for your explanation first.🙂 So you think I'm an idiot that don't know pixels is a physical unit of measurement? 🙄 It's quite insulting...😕 If you're really asking, could you please ask it nicely? If you're judging, that's just unconstructive... Something I have to clarify. Although I was producing physical objects, it's not necessary for me to work my file in physical measurement. Although I set up the project in an A4 size, I worked everything in pixels. The size was just for a reference so I knew nothing was working outside the limitation of my machine, so were other image designs. After I got their physical dimensions, I will convert them to pixel size by rounding them manually, instead of leaving them having unsharp lines. You can tell from my file attached file before, I was working in pixels all the time. So I was not checking for errors using pixels, I was told there were errors while I checked the file. The story is: First, do you remember what I said: I used to use Photo instead of Designer (because of v2 trial) for image preparing and exported them as bitmaps. The vector cut is exported separately or done directly in the laser software. Since I only need physical measurements for reference only, I chose to work in pixel unit for pixel perfect result. (The smallest details can be shown on my projects is as less as 3px) Although my laser software only accept physical measurement as input value (even for bitmaps), using physical units as file outputs will just make images lose even more sharpness. I did really say that "I work on physical objects so I use physical measurements in software." because I really used them and/only needed them for physical dimension references. And again, the file I provide was altered from a work-in-progress. The final output was "Clip canvas" from those full-pixeled objects to achieve a full-pixeled bitmap, at the same time, the physical dimensions were noted for laser software input. (The rounding from laser software is unavoidable) I didn't expect to explain so much details about my work flow because it's totally irrelevant to the topic. And previous comments are lengthy enough. And I didn't expect anyone would ask such irrelevant question trying to make themself superior. Some people give comments for trying to help, while some trying to make themself superior. I don't want any arguments. I just hope everyone's comments is comfortable for anyone to read 😉

I know... You're right... I don't hold my breath. I also feel the priority is very low.😒 But that's ok for me. It won't affect my work anyway. I can just work in my old way.(no images in SVGs) I'm just doing my job of bug reporting, somehow having lengthy discussions.🙄 That's why I said " I was going to abandon the post, somehow a new comment came... Quality comments matter😉 Thanks for your advice, Bruce. Your single sentence explains a lot. 🙂 (updated: Do you mean if I use imperial as the canvas size can avoid rounding(at least for the canvas) and get more precise results?)