Medical Officer Bones

I remember Dimensions: at the time it was already very limited compared to applications such as Lightwave and Max. Its saving grace was indeed the unique vector output that looked alright. Sketchup Pro exports vector files of 3d scenes and objects. Unfortunately, it costs $600, because the free "Make" version does not support this. But if you need a simple to use 3d editor with vector output that is very easy to learn (easier than Illustrator!): Sketchup is it. And it is far more capable than Dimensions ever was (well, excepting the smooth gradient output). I saw a post here a while ago mentioning Blender with SVG output. But that takes it to a whole different level, I suppose.

1-bit mode would be very welcomed. The only image editor that I am aware of that supports 1bit layers with high PPI resolutions and allows these to be combined with 300ppi colour ones in the same layer stack is PhotoLine. Crossing my fingers for Photo's next version that will hopefully support 1bit properly.

I suggest leaving Dreamweaver for a combination of Pinegrow and Atom - and the upcoming Pinegrow 3 update is going to be even more impressive. Dreamweaver is a train wreck in its latest incarnation(s), and CS3 misses support for modern frameworks and WordPress. And if you miss Golive, you'd feel quite at home in Pinegrow as well. https://pinegrow.com/ https://atom.io/ Atom and Pinegrow allow for a live connection: type code in Atom, and Pinegrow's visual view(s) update with the code changes, and vice versa. No saving required!

The new version of Resolve (14 - they skipped "unlucky" 13!) is rewritten from scratch, and performance is supposed to be a ten-fold improvement. However, it is still in beta, and although the new version 14 can be downloaded now, it is still quite buggy. The new audio features sound very intriguing. Definitely going to be a force to be reckoned with now - the price of the pro version is decreased to $299 as well.

While I agree that more export options would be welcome -- in particular webp export -- I don't think it would outperform dedicated tools. In my experience with Photoshop's newer export options these always result in lossless images that are bigger in file size. My current workflow is exporting PNG files at full quality, and then run them through Color Quantizer one by one, choosing custom settings for each (or a group of files) file. The beautiful thing in CQ is that a quality mask brush allows for very controlled optimization. Nothing else (automated) comes close. I am 100% certain Affinity would not be able to match the quality and small file size compared to CQ even if automated lossless file optimization would be integrated. Besides, Affinity lacks proper scale-down resampling algorithms (Catmull-Rom, Mitchel-netravali to name but a few) that result in smaller file sizes compared to Lanczos (which introduces more data than needed in scaled-down resampled images). That ought to be resolved as well. I do this in CQ as well (which offers 16(!) different resampling algorithms). These two shortcomings in most (if not all) image editors will always result in larger-than-needed image file sizes.

I wasn't advertising it: only mentioning an alternative that DOES work on Linux (and Chromebooks, for that matter). People here mention Photoshop, Illustrator, Inkscape, Gimp, and other tools all the time as well when it makes sense to compare to Affinity, right? This thread is about porting Affinity to Linux, which is (most probably) never going to happen, and since I also work on Linux machines, I am always on the lookout for promising alternative Linux graphics software. If Affinity Designer would be available for Linux, I wouldn't think twice of using THAT. But Affinity does not work on Linux, so any even remotely promising professional alternative for illustration work is very welcome on Linux in my book. Look, this thread is already nine pages long, so that means there is some interest in the Linux community for good professional level illustration software. I was only "the bearer of good news" in that there is some positive development in that area. I agree that Gravit isn't on the same level (yet) compared to Designer - the roadmap looks quite promising, though. I hope to be using it alongside Designer on my Windows machine.

Soon Linux users may no longer have a reason to pine for a native Affinity Designer: Gravit is quickly becoming a serious contender. Version 3 is released with page and page template support, text styles, anchors for responsive design work, and improved FX and FX styles. On Gravit's roadmap: a webGL renderer to speed up the viewport, symbols, advanced open type formatting, interactive(!) prototyping tools, animation(!), transitions(!), and states(!), advanced DTP layout features(!), a vector brush, and a bitmap brush mode. The interesting thing is that basic DTP functionality, interactive prototyping and animation tools have been requested many times by Affinity Designer users, but will not be added according to the developers (DTP will be handled by Affinity Publisher). Perhaps Gravit might change their minds a bit? Runs on Linux, Windows, Mac, ChromeOS, any modern browser, and is soon available for both iOS and Android! In it current state it is already quite good, although Designer still leaves Gravit in its dust. Still, the potential it had is now coming to fruition. In short: Gravit seems likely to grow into real competition for Affinity Designer and other commercial illustration tools. And all for... FREE! In their own words: Interesting times.

1) export each element as a SVG from Designer 2) import each SVG element into Flash. You will have to convert the elements to graphic symbols and/or movieclips in Flash. 3) if animated elements are required, use the moviclips/graphic symbols to animate things. You may have to create additional nested movieclips to animate sub-elements, if needed. 4) hand final Flash file with animations to developer. Don't forget to organize the assets nicely in Flash's library, of course. Confer with the developer whether he/she must have movieclips, graphic symbols, etc. to work with during development. Most artists who I know work in a separate illustration tool, and import the static assets into Flash for animation, then hand over the file(s) to the developer.

@whsbb: Just out of curiosity - why would you need the old web safe colours? Any particular reason? Are you preparing graphics for old 256colour screens?

???? What would be the point of those 4096 'smart' colours? The page doesn't explain why anyone would bother with either limited colour palette. The referred site is interesting from a historical point of view only.

Web safe colours are defunct, and no longer needed. The time that we had only access to 256 colour screens lies far, far behind us.

I prefer the Catmull-Rom resampling for all my down-sampling, since it: will not add additional noise will not add fringes/halos along the edges (looking at you, Lanczos! keeps photographic details remarkably intact keeps sharp highlights keeps the fidelity of vector artwork and results in crisp and clean edges The main issue with Lanczos and down-sampling are the edge halos that Lanczos introduces - almost as if a sharpening method is applied. Lanczos is good for up-scaling, though. Because Photoshop and Affinity Photo are very limited in their choice of resampling options, I used ColorQuantizer to scale the photo with the road sign to 800px width. No additional processing performed. (download ColorQuantizer here: http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html) Download the results for comparison: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B03AC_RA8Ch1VmpXeE1jdnd0Um8 Notice that Lanczos results in a larger file size caused by the extra information (edge halos) that was introduced while downsampling. This continues down in the pipeline: the down-sampled Catmull-Rom version is "cleaner" and results in smaller JPG files at the identical compression settings compared to the Lanczos down-sampled version. Those extra halos may also become more problematic to process in jpg, resulting in increased artifacting (slightly increased noise). For example, the exact same image processed with Catmull-Rom and saved as a jpg results in a 123,449 bytes jpg. Compare this with the Lanczos version that produces a 127,808bytes large file. And the Catmull-Rom has less noise around the edges (RIOT jpg settings: 85%, Progressive, Chroma sub-sampling set to Low (4:2:2). All this is somewhat academic, of course. For most people Lanczos will suffice, but Catmull-Rom is the better choice for down-sampling images nonetheless - both in quality and final file size. It has been proven in other tests online as well.

With a Wacom, the BEST (no, really!) vector inking experience and tools are found in ClipStudio. In my opinion nothing else compares. BUT stupidly enough ClipStudio can't export those as vector for use in a different application. Plain silly. I hope Affinity Designer will have similar vector inking tools at some point.

No, not yet in Affinity Designer. In Photo you can use the perspective filter. Open the AD file in Photo to achieve this, but unfortunately it does rasterize the vectors to a bitmap version. Distortion is on the roadmap. Hopefully this essential function will be included in the new version which ought to be released soon :-)

Do you have access to a graphics tablet (preferably a Wacom)? If not, get one. Inking without a tablet is painful. You don't want to be adjusting pressure profiles continuously - inking with a Wacom is natural. Of course, it does mean you will need to learn basic drawing skills. I assume you have those.

Btw, as for the lower resolution of AD's version: are you SURE the document resolution is up to snuff in AD? Are you exporting at a high enough resolution? Anyway, import as vector is the most optimal solution in your case.

Two options to try: 1) copy the graphic in AD, and paste directly in Pages. This ought to retain the vectors - better than a bitmap. or 2) save the graphic in AD as a PDF file. Import into your Pages document. This should retain the vectors and quality as well. Good luck! Pages is unfortunately rather limited in terms of vector import.

So... what is the issue with these two examples? They look fine to me. Perhaps the anti-aliasing is a tad on the soft side? In that case, export your work at double the resolution, and scale down to half the resolution with a tool that allows you to sample down with the catmulrom algorithm. That will result in razor-sharp looking anti-aliased edges. Affinity does not support catmullrom, though (most design application do not). I use ColorQuantizer for this step, which also happens to result in far smaller files than what you can achieve in Affinity's web export. Color Quantizer is the best PNG optimization tool I am aware of. Get it here for free: http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html Not available for Macs :-( But can be run in WINE for Mac - it is worth it. I do this.

Unsure... According to their roadmap it ought to be included before version 1.6 is released, I believe? I suppose 1.6 will be released sometime this year, and I'd be very surprised if non-destructive RAW editing would not be part of that update. It is one of the most requested things. I think the devs are working on smart object like options that would integrate the non-destructive RAW feature as well. But again, I am not privy to their internal development. Perhaps one of the devs might chime in here to elucidate further on this matter?

Off the top of my hat: Affinity Photo misses: - 3d features - 3d printing features - animation, timeline - video timeline - scripting - 1bit and indexed bitmap support The things missing for photography: - smart objects and live smart filters (but Affinity Photo offers a wide range of non-destructive filters as well) - non-destructive RAW editing (which is to be added in a future version) - layer distortion (but a perspective filter is available) - duotones, tritones, or hexachrome support (which may be important to professional photographers looking to print their work at a high quality) - spot channels (which is forthcoming in a new version) Having said this, 3d in Photoshop is pretty terrible (you're better off downloading the free and open source Blender that is by FAR superior in this regard), and if you need video/animation much better free and commercial software is available as well. I never used the ones built into Photoshop - far too limiting in my opinion. Photoshop import is quite adequate, but understandably will always remain a hit and miss affair. On the other hand, a number of features arguably work better than the equivalent ones in Photoshop: for example the layer masks, the fact that all transformations are by default non-destructive, advanced layer blending, a nice curve option for anti-aliasing, the grid, 360degree photo editing (still a bit limited, though), and the way many tools are implemented. Roadmap: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/10075-affinity-photo-feature-roadmap

File-->Place the file. Scale the image layer down to your canvas size or the size you need on the A5 canvas. Then right-mouse click the layer, and rasterize. You will now have an image at the required 300ppi and ~2480 width pixel resolution. Use pixel alignment and turn on snapping to align the image to the borders of your A5 canvas.

I am a bit on the fence here, understanding both viewpoints. From most users' point of view the old "different platform, new license required" may seem an outdated approach in licensing. Most of the commercial software I have installed is cross-platform, and the same license works for both - so one price covers both Windows and Mac. I do think the main reason for Affinity to have two separate licenses also has to do with the different licensing tech (istore). On the other hand, the price threshold for Affinity is very low: for a mere $100 you get two quality professional products. Yes, it is a bit painful to pay an additional $100 to have access to both a Mac/Win version, but in the end it is still much more inexpensive than a rental scheme that costs $50 a month. I also understand supporting two platforms costs additional development time and money depending on the development tools and APIs used. As I see it, Affinity was developed with Macs in mind initially, and to create a Windows version wasn't just a case of installing the dev tools on a Win rig, and compiling the code straight out of the box. Other applications on the market have been developed with both platforms in mind right from the start, so it probably was a simple case of choosing cross-platform compatible development tools, APIs, and libraries. I have a feeling this is certainly not the case with Affinity. From a user's point of view having separate licenses for Mac and Windows is awkward and unfriendly - even Adobe is aware of this. Many users have a Windows desktop machine at home, and use a Macbook for on the road work. I do feel these users are being punished by a license that only covers one platform. I'd have to say I probably wouldn't bother purchasing both a Mac and Windows license myself if I'd do my work on two machines with different OSs installed, and just limit my work in Affinity on one. It's not really a question of the actual costs involved, more a feeling that I'd be paying twice for the same product for the convenience of using it on two platforms. Now that web-based browser applications are becoming more and more common, I think a younger audience would also not take kindly to the somewhat arbitrary platform division. In the end, it *IS* a bit of an old-fashioned outlook on software and platform support, in my opinion. That said, I understand the developers' decision as well. Whether that is the most user-friendly one and smart one in the long run? I doubt that.

Too easy to state that developers "just search for excuses not to make all-in-one apps". We call that a generalization. What exactly would become part of that magical product that can do it all? Where do you stop? So many users who have all these different wishes and workflows - how can you implement those all right from the start? YOU CAN'T. You have to make choices, and adapt to changing conditions in the market, and user wishes. You cannot plan ahead for everything. No, that is not the way to do complex large-scale development such as Affinity. User testing must be integrated right from the beginning.

Just hand paint it!

It's a bit unrealistic to expect one application to "do it all", and risking that the various components are lacking in comparison to specialist software. Xara and PhotoLine combine both vector and bitmap editing, but those miss other things again. No tool is perfect. I do not paint in Photo or Designer or Photoshop - I prefer Krita and Clipstudio, because their primary focus is digital painting and sketching, and they do it way better than those three. I prefer Cinema4d and Blender for 3d work and lettering: even with Photoshop's 3d functions, I find Photoshop's 3d to be way too limited for usability, features, and output quality. If I need to do publishing, I prefer InDesign (although I hate the subscription). The problem is also knowing where to stop: some people need a super chart tool, others responsive web mockup tools, and yet others again require perspective projection tools with z-channel support, or animation/video timelines. Where does it stop? To combine all of this into one application would cause bloat, and from a developer's point of view it becomes a nightmare to maintain. In my opinion the trouble is that so many different users from widely different backgrounds expect a tool that does "everything". That is an unrealistic expectation. So much quality specialist software out there - Affinity should not be trying to reinvent the wheel, but improve the carriage that carries its users instead. Nor should a designer expect any single software app to "do it all". Instead, improve file exchange abilities between software. Ideally an open design format that supports seamless collaboration between widely varying apps would be the holy (utopian) grail.