benwiggy

Another reason to maintain a backup. There are plenty of software developers that don't let you download earlier versions, either.

The question remains, why, at version 1.9, several years into the planning of the project, is this 'the first step'? Why such an arse-about-face implementation, of turning every object inside a PDF into an Affinity data type (unfaithfully when it comes to text), when solutions widely exist for PDF as images, editable objects and rasterized bitmaps? It is only because the implementation of the rest of the suite is of such high standard and capability that this PDF blindness is all the more bizarre and inexplicable. There really ought to be an FAQ setting out the company's view on this, why they've done what they've done, and why it not working now is worth waiting for something later.

Here's an EPS file with embedded subset TrueType and OpenType fonts. Fonts.eps My point is: Affinity imports an EPS file as a placed 'image', just like normal apps do with PDF. I can render a bitmap of one. I can import one for editing, albeit that Affinity outlines everything. But that would be an improvement for PDFs over the current 'first step' in some strange and unusual implementation.

Please just treat PDFs like you already do for EPS. All problems solved!!

Dear MEB I would be very grateful if you could explain to me why Affinity has made this curious choice about PDFs, and what benefits it brings over the conventional methods used by every other application. It is a cause of huge frustration. I cannot raster a PDF into a bitmap accurately; I cannot open a PDF for editing; I cannot get an accurate representation as a page object. And yet EPS files work perfectly. Thanks

Everything I know tells me this should be changed. There's not much point testing any further if it can't just plonk a PDF on a page properly.

The enclosed PDF uses Small Caps, non-lining figures, Swash letters and text ligatures. It still looks awful when Placed as a Passthrough PDF. Affinity_problems.pdf

Affinity can interpret PostScript in EPS files with embedded fonts perfectly. Putting a PDF on a page is not a radically difficult new concept. It's been done since the 20th century. Yes, I know a little about PDF. 😉 There is "interpreting" and then there is "interpreting" - and for some reason Affinity's 'interpreting' is entirely different from just rendering as any other application would do it. It wouldn't matter so much, but for the fact that, as you point out, Affinity's interpretation is incomplete. We are in agreement that "some approximations are better than others". Every other approximation works sufficiently well, and Affinity's approximation does not. I am deeply disappointed that I cannot use Affinity reliably for the kind of work with PDFs that I need to do. If there is a paid upgrade to v.2.0, then I will certainly think twice before committing if the PDF workflow is not improved.

That's exactly what it does with EPS. 1. I'm not sure I want ads/logos 'converted to image file' - I want them passed through. But Affinity should convert to bitmap in Photo persona. It does not do this reliably. 2. Outline text for editing in Design persona. 3. Place as pass-through image object in Publisher persona. Is that not what you want?

"the PDF specification will always have features we won't support." "We are still working on aspects of our PDF importer that converts PDF to native Affinity" The design intent seems to be to provide an 'interpreted' PDF on the screen, regardless of the state of the beta development. Affinity is hell-bent on 'converting PDF to native Affinity', rather than just accurately rendering a PDF as a graphic object. This would be fine if it were guaranteed 100% accurate, but it isn't. Affinity should just treat PDF the same way it currently does EPS -- place as an image; open and outline the embedded fonts for editing or bitmapping -- with this 'interpretation' thing as an optional extra. They could save themselves a ton of work and satisfy most of their users. As it is, the current design fails to make Affinity a viable product for my workflow.

Apologies, I just came up with a name that sounded like the crappiest template-driven DTP app I could think of. Maybe I'll develop it myself. Maybe I won't: clearly there isn't a market for importing, editing or rastering PDFs.

Call me crazy, but what about showing an accurately rendered PDF, displayed on the page? Like InDesign does. Like Pages does. Like Word does. Like Uncle Bob's BrochureMaker™ and every other app in the world does.

Does the company have a blog where they might explain why, when they came to design the Affinity suite of apps, they elected to choose such an absurd and largely unhelpful model for the handling of PDFs?

The 'pass-through' PDF option is still failing to cope with FI, FL, FFL ligatures, exactly as seen in previous versions. Just a switch to outline the fonts in the PDF would fix so much!

Definitely not as good as the original. Bitmapping to 300 dpi will lose significant quality for vector line-art (which is what text is), and would need to be at 1200dpi. JPEGging can also create artefacts in areas of high contrast, particularly with type. Better workarounds are: outline the font data in the PDF (so that the text just becomes vector images); or convert to EPS, of which, for some reason, Affinity can read the embedded fonts correctly.