Medical Officer Bones

Meanwhile Krita was released a while ago for ChromeOS (both Intel and ARM): https://krita.org/en/item/second-beta-for-krita-4-3-0-released/ Or download via the app store.

The Anti-alias option in Photoshop (or in Gimp for that matter) is not the same as a dedicated overfill feature. The anti-alias option isn't actually a good solution, and often delivers not-so-great to unusable results. The application either needs to be 'aware' of anti-aliasing and overfill it by default (ClipStudio), and/or a dedicated overfill option is included. Anti-aliasing by itself generally doesn't solve all use cases satisfactorily.

It is unfortunately one more paper cut in Affinity. Two paper cuts in this use case, actually. The first issue with the fill tool is the lack of anti-aliasing/alpha awareness or the lack of an overfill option. In other software this is solved by either including the alpha of pixels by default, or including an option to control the overfill. In Krita it is called "Grow Selection". ClipStudio Paint does it automatically by overfilling transparent pixels (because who would want ugly aliased fills!). PhotoLine fixes this with an "Overfill" option. Art Studio has a "smart fill" option. Gimp, Photoshop, and Affinity Photo rely on the tolerance threshold to address this, but it is less than ideal, and often doesn't work as expected, or requires more fiddling around. Affinity's threshold seems the most finicky of all in my experience. The second issue with Affinity Photo's fill tool is the lack of a "read merged" or "all layers" option in the Source drop-down list. Here is why: suppose the artist wants to quickly fill areas of comic artwork. The default workflow is to put the line art in a layer above the fill layer, then fill areas. This can be done in several ways, and one quick method is to just use the fill tool. The artist then chooses "sample merged" or "(sample) All layers", sets the overfill (depending on the software) and fills the area. This workflow is unavailable in Affinity Photo, however: the Source list only includes "current layer & below", "current layer", and "layers beneath". It is literally impossible to fill comic art using this very basic approach in Affinity Photo. ClipStudio Paint offers the best controls and has options that range far beyond the "sample all layers", which is great. Krita has a nice "Color labelled layers" aside from the "All layers" option to precisely define which layers to sample from. PhotoLine, Gimp, Photoshop: these all have the "All Layers" option. Yet Affinity Photo lacks any such option, rendering the fill tool pretty much useless for such work (including bringing in technical drawings as line art, btw! Not only comic art jobs!). Instead, the fill layer must be placed ON TOP of the line art, which is very, very awkward. The Affinity devs should take note: add an overflow option, and allow the user to sample the layer(s) above the fill layer. Without these two very basic options the fill tool is pretty much useless for anything beyond simple tasks. At the very least add the "all layers" source option to have feature parity with Photoshop and Gimp.

Well, now that Apple announced that Safari will be supporting the webp format, I see no reason for the Affinity devs to hold off on supporting the export of it. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/22/webp-safari-14/

Agreed. I find myself in a similar situation with InDesign projects: I rent it for a month whenever I need it for a particular client who returns with a particular job every year. Otherwise I opt to work in alternative software, since mostly clients want PDF files, and have no need for the source files. If you have to collaborate with others using Photoshop and PSD files, there is really no other choice but to work in Photoshop (unless specific circumstances allow to do so such as agreeing with the team to limit/flatten the use of certain PS functionality).

I checked this, and there are actually two types of vector fills in PhotoLine: ones that work with a formula of sorts (the ones you tried) and custom ones made by converting a document to a pattern. The second type works well, as long as everything is aligned (turn on Pattern preview mode in the View menu) and the pattern is defined via the document-->Color from document command. Not sure what the issue is with the first type. I did investigate, and the exported PDF did indeed show many small segments. But it printed okay for me.

Well, this year's WWDC was "interesting" to say the very least. @Bugiardini This is not going to make your decision easier, is it? All Intel-based Macs will be dead (or at the very least 'retro') tech in a few years time now that Apple is switching to ARM processors. It is the G5-->Intel thing all over again. No announcements of any new iMac 27" - but it may very probably be ARM based sometime next year? I am unsure if I would invest in a hardware platform of which I would be certain that it will be dead/superceded within a couple of years. I would just get the Envy now, personally, and wait for things to settle down with the Apple's transition to the new ARM processors. The WIndows platform looks much more reliable as a platform choice right now as well, since MacOS is transitioning into the direction of a unified iOS/MacOS platform with this announcement.

I just dragged and dropped a RX100-VII ARW file into the window,, which is a newer model, and it worked - so your file should be supported as well. Btw, PL's raw developer is non-destructive. It is also possible to drag a file into the window while holding down the alt/option modifier key to create a externally linked smart object (called a "placeholder" layer. ...getting off-topic now. I hope free transform of vector objects/layers will be added by the time v2.0 is out. And a non-destructive Blend/morph option. And true vector brushes. And vector patterns. And many other basic features still missing.

If you report your issue on the PhotoLine Forums and provide a good argument, chances are the devs will address the issue quickly. They are very open to improvements and suggestions, often fixing things by the next beta..

Why not export to SVG and import that in your 3d software instead? If your 3d software does not support SVG import, import the SVG in Blender, and save to a common 3d file format, and import that in your 3d software.

If I were in your shoes, I would wait for the upcoming WWDC and see what Apple has on its sleeves. There may be an updated iMac 27" around the corner. I really think the current iMac 27" i5 5K model is too "yesterday's tech", so to speak. Not a good deal in my personal opinion. If someone forced my hand, I would just spend an extra $1200 on the i7 model with the SSD and better video card. Thing is, though, for that money you could get a beast of a Windows desktop machine that would probably negate all the advantages of Affinity running more smoothly on Macs. And just to bring things into perspective: my current Windows machine runs an old i7 from 10 years ago, and Publisher and Designer run fine on it. I load large documents in Publisher, and encountered few issues (mainly to do with the software itself, rather than performance problems). I also use large 27" monitors and work daily on my large Wacom Pro tablet. The CPU is slow compared to todays' offerings, but together with a fast dedicated modern graphics card and 48GB of memory it poses few problems in my work (although I do plan to upgrade sometime this year). Both machines would run Affinity well. The much faster CPU, video hardware and modern architecture of the Envy would probably balance out performance issues of Affinity compared to the slower iMac. But I can't be certain, because I would have to see them in action. It is just a hunch that both machines would work equally well with Affinity Designer and Publisher. But again, I can't be sure - no-one here could unequivocally tell you this unless it is tested. And Serif is working on getting the Windows versions to use full hardware acceleration too, so even if there is a discrepancy between the two OSes now, by next year this might not be the case anymore. Perhaps someone working with the 1.9 beta on both systems could chime in here? I'd be curious too. In my opinion I think it is best to see if you can test Affinity on an iMac 27" and a similar Windows machine before you make a decision. And also consider which other software you'd like to run on the machine. I cannot make that decision for you. And by next year the Windows version might have caught up. Or not. PS addendum: right now Affinity on Mac is accelerated with Metal, and it performs clearly better than the WIndows version. Not making this any easier, am I?

Not really - it depends again. Components are soldered to the mainboard in iMacs and Mac book (Pros), they are not really self-serviceable, cannot easily be upgraded or repaired with newer components, must be mailed to Apple for repair,... One of my WIndows machines is running for almost 13 years now. I replaced older components with newer ones, and replaced a hard drive. This could not be done with an iMac. The classic MacPro is however a different story, of course. That was a great expandable and self-serviceable machine. A friend of mine still keeps his running very well. Any computing device made relied on modern slavery and severe damage to the environment, unfortunately. No matter the brand. This regrettable situation has improved somewhat over the years, but it is still the case. It depends again. Usability research has indicated that Windows users are more productive and require less mouse clicks to accomplish ordinary tasks than their Mac counterparts. Do not confuse perceived usability with actual usability and productivity. It depends on specific user and use cases. Also realize the difference between various type of users (root users, expert users, novice users, and so on) - a general statement like yours is a over-simplification, and really depends again on the type of user, their background and experience, and so on, and so forth. Some things work arguably better on a Mac. Other things work arguably better on a Windows machine. Some things again better on a Linux machine. And this experience is also coloured by the type of user and their experience, needs and wants. Heck, some things still work better on the old Amiga! Nothing is ever black and white. It is too easy to fall into the trap of a polarized discussion. I understand that you prefer to work on a Mac. Others prefer to work on Windows, or Linux. I sometimes boot up my old Amiga system, and still like it better than either Mac or Windows 😜

Yes, read about that today. It is supposed to have a thin bezel, no fusion drive (good riddance) but SSD as a standard, and perhaps the new AMD graphics. Probably at least 16GB as standard too, and updated Intel chips. If so, definitely worth the wait - next week at the WWDC we should learn more. @Bugiardini I would wait a bit and see what is announced for the iMac lineup next week.

I worked with Macs, Windows, and Linux computers all my life. It's an emotional over-simplification to state that Windows runs slower than a Mac or Linux on the same machine. For example, Windows is great for gaming and 3d work, while the video drivers on Macs generally aren't that great or optimized. Pure rendering tasks (such as video and 3d rendering) rely on hardware for speed. But optimized software can make a huge difference as well: eCycles (an optimized Windows-only version of Blender's Cycles) renders extremely fast on WIndows and a RTX Nvidia card. That option is not available on a Mac. And Metal is turning out to be less of a performance miracle than Mac proponents hoped for. Affinity runs better on Mac computers - but other software does not, and runs better on Windows, or equally well. It is too simple to say that MacOS runs software smoother than Windows, or Linux, etc. Fact is that for certain jobs Macs aren't that great a choice (3d work or gaming for example). Fact is that the latest MacOSX is a bit of a train-wreck. Apple is working out the kinks, though. And more powerful hardware does make a difference, even if one OS is more optimized than the other one. A CPU that runs twice as fast as another one will run any OS or task faster, even if it is less optimized to run on that hardware. The difference between Envy's i7 and an iMac's 27" 5K i5 CPU, together with a much more powerful video card and more RAM, as well as a 512GB SSD is going to make a painful difference for heavy duty graphics jobs - but perhaps less so in Affinity apps. But you have to ask yourself the question whether you want to invest MORE money in yesterday's hardware rather than current up-to-date hardware. The iMac 27" 5K machine is not that convincing a product at this point in time. And if you would opt for a Windows desktop machine, the hardware difference would be even MUCH more pronounced and obvious. That iMac is in dire need of a hardware update. Sweeping the obvious hardware advantages of a competing product aside at a far lower price by justifying that the OS supposedly runs more smoothly is clutching on a straw. But I would agree that everyone has their own OS preference. If you cannot live with Windows, then the iMac is a fine machine.

Agreed. Webp is a unique format in that it combines both lossy image compression combined with alpha transparency. It is a great format for 2d hand-drawn game graphics, for example, for which I use the format. PNG takes up too much file space, and the art looks just fine with a lossy compression. Jpeg wouldn't work since it does not support transparency/alpha. On a web page often a lossy compressed image with full alpha works just as nicely as that PNG version, but hugely saves on bandwidth. To reduce a PNG file in file size, colour reduction is the only option, but it can only be taken so far before it degrades the image too much. For example, a typical asset that would be reduced to 1024 colours with alpha transparency at ~600x600px would take up around 130KB file size after running it through a PNG optimization power tool (forget saving an optimized PNG version from Affinity Photo). Saving this same asset at full colour in a lossy webp format results in 55kb. Running the 1024 colour version as a webp version shaves off even more. And both the alpha and colour data can be independently processed in Webp, offering a lot of optimization potential. By now all major browsers support the file format. Only Apple obstinately refuses to do so. Webp potentially saves a lot of bandwidth, and thereby a lot of energy. By not supporting webp export, Affinity is only shooting itself in the foot. But all is moot anyway: Affinity still to this day does not allow the user to preview what the assets look like optimized. I can't even consider Affinity for image optimization work unless that is implemented. And quality/export control over PNG is terribly limited in Affinity as well (and to be fair in most design apps), so I use Color Quantizer (a dedicated PNG optimization tool) to perform the final optimization step. It will also export Webp. To be entirely honest, the entire export persona in Affinity is not that useful to me in its current state. But I do confess to be a complete nitpicking asset optimization nutcase! So it is probably works just fine for the average user.

iMac 27" 5K Base Model VERSUS HP ENVY All-in-One i7 model Ready? FIGHT!!! PROCESSOR 3.7GHz 6-core 9th-gen i5 VS i7-9700KF @ 3.60GHz 10929 points VS 14669 points Passmark benchmark ENVY WINS. Obviously. An i5 cannot hold a candle to an i7 class CPU. GPU VIDEO Radeon Pro 580X with 8GB of GDDR5 memory VS NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 2060 6 GB GDDR6 & Intel® UHD Graphics 630 integrated 7753 points VS 15000 points Passmark benchmark The current-gen RTX 2060 is more than twice as fast for 3d work and gaming and can be used for CUDA and OpenCL accelerated applications (video editing, 3d rendering). The 580X supports Metal and OpenCL, but is a last-gen GPU. For gaming on a 4K or 5K screen, the 580x is entirely insufficient. You would need to update the GPU to a VEGA to achieve acceptable gaming performance on an iMac (or lower the resolution to 1080p). ENVY WINS. No question about this. Apple's offering is behind the times. Not only that, the Envy includes an integrated Intel video chip option as a fallback or if you want to save energy while typing a document. DISPLAY 27" Retina 5K 5120x2880 500nits wide colour P3 VS 31.5" 4K IPS ZBD HDR 600 micro-edge WLED-backlit with anti-reflection edge-to-edge glass, 3840 x 2160 600 nits, 98% DCI-P3 Tough one. One the one hand the Envy screen boasts a larger screen and the highest contrast ratio for an all-in-one screen, but on the other the iMac 27" screen offers a higher resolution. According to reviews, both have excellent screen quality, but the Envy beats the iMac screen with a stunning high 6000:1 contrast ratio compared to the iMac's 900:1. For a photographer this is actually quite important to have. The Envy's screen offers 32% more physical screen space, 20% more brightness, and 5 times better contrast. Based on my own experience I'd give Envy the winning hand here. You also have to understand that a higher resolution on a smaller screen size does not necessarily mean more screen space. And things will look smaller on that 27". From my own experience with the iMac 27"5K and non-retina 27" screens, obviously the 5K looks incredibly crisp. But I have worked with a large 32" 4K screen, and I loved that. It just felt better than a smaller 27" 5K iMac screen. To be fair, my eyes are not what they used to be, and a larger screen is just gentler on the eyes in general. For me a 4K 32" trumps a 27" 5K screen in terms of usability and ergonomics. For 3d work and graphics work a slightly lower resolution may actually be a benefit to the overall performance, because less pixels have to be processed. TIE. Personally I would go for the Envy here, but I am aware that the iMac 5K screen looks gorgeous too. If you are a person aged over 35-40, I would definitely go with the Envy, though. Just a shame the Envy doesn't include a touch screen. MEMORY 8GB VS 16GB ENVY WINS. 8GB is unacceptable nowadays. 16GB is a minimum, in particular when doing graphics work. If possible, go with 32GB for design work. STORAGE 2TB Fusion Drive VS 512GB SSD & 1 TB 7200 HDD & 32 GB NVMe™ Intel® Optane™ Memory for storage acceleration The Fusion Drive is a combo with a 128 SSD and traditional HDD. A full SSD is much faster, in particular for heavy duty graphics work. You do get more storage with the iMac, but its Fusion drive is generally perceived as its weakest component. The Envy also offers that next-gen Optane storage acceleration built-in and together with the 512 SSD drive earns it its victory in this category. Besides, external storage is cheap. ENVY WINS. SOUND Standard small speakers VS all-in-one audio solution Bang & Olufsen. From experience (working with iMacs throughout the years) the built-in sound quality on an iMac is reasonable. For a built-in all-in-one audio option currently nothing on the market beats the Envy, though. All the Envy reviews rave about its sound quality. A solid win for the Envy! ENVY WINS. DESIGN This is a rather personal preference, but arguably it can be stated that the current iMac's design looks somewhat tired. The large thick black bezel isn't doing it any favours. It is still a great design, of course. The Envy looks more current, and the thin bezel is quite nice. Arguably the HP Envy's square rectilinear design is more in line with modern design thinking. TIE. Both look the part. It is mainly down to individual preferences. CONNECTIVITY iMac: 4xUSB 3.0 ports, Gigabit Ethernet, 1 headphone/microphone. 2xThunderbolt 3 (USB-C). All on the back side. 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.2 FaceTime HD camera integrated microphone SDXC card slot Video: 2xThunderbolt 3 (USB-C) support for DisplayPort Envy: Side: 1 USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A, 1 headphone/microphone Rear: 1 Thunderbolt 3, 2xUSB 3.1 Gen 2, 1xUSB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C Realtek Wi-Fi 5 (2x2) and Bluetooth® 5 Combo HP Privacy 5MP IR Camera integrated microphone Side: 3-in-1 memory card reader Expansion slots 2 M.2 (1 for SSD, 1 for WLAN) Base: wireless charging pad 1 HDMI-out; 1 HDMI-in (video) TIE. It really depends on your requirements. It is nice that the Envy has a built-in memory card reader if you do Photography, and it provides some updated port version compared to the iMac 27. The iMac has more Thunderbolt ports, though, and (it seems) allows for two external screens to be hooked up versus Envy's one. But you will have to spend extra $$ to get a displayport adapter. On the other hand the Envy sports a HDMI IN port, which means a console or other video source can be hooked up, and the display used to display that source. PERIPHERALS & INPUT Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse 2 VS HP USB Nightfall black wireless keyboard and mouse combo ENVY WINS. For three main reasons: the lack of a numeric numpad on the Magic keyboard, and the Magic Mouse and keyboard lack of ergonomic design. The Nightfall keyboard can also hold a phone and tablet in its groove and offers two direct Bluetooth channels for pairing devices - which allows for typing responses on your smartphone or tablet using the keyboard. Or keep an eye out on your device's screen while working. And the sound bar also works as a smartphone controlled bluetooth speaker. The wireless charging pad on the base is handy. The Magic Keyboard is cramped and uncomfortable, with very short key travel. The Magic Mouse 2 is the source of frustration for many Mac users in practice. Its recharging port is located on the bottom, meaning it cannot be used while it is charging. The precision is below par with its 1300 dpi (compared to current mice which go up to 10000 or above). The ergonomics are questionable and cause pain after using it for a longer time in many users. The Envy's mouse is an unremarkable one. While it may not look as nice as the MM2, its ergonomics are indisputably better. OPERATING SYSTEM TIE. Both work equally well. It's a personal choice. The latest version of MacOSX no longer supports 32bit software. OVERALL BUILD QUALITY Brushed silver aluminum versus black plastic. While the Envy has a good build quality according to reviews, it can't compete with that solid metal cool-looking housing. The Envy's rather awkward big power brick doesn't help either. iMAC 27 WINS. COST PERFORMANCE RATIO HP ENVY All-in-One - 32-a0055 $2199.99 i7-9700, Nvidia RTX2060 8GB/intel graphics 630 / 512SSD, 1TB 7200HDD, 32GB Intel Optane Memory storage accelerator / 16GB RAM / 31.5" 4K screen iMac 27" 5K $2299.00 i5-9600KF 9th gen, Radeon Pro 580X 8GB, 2TB Fusion Drive, 8GB RAM, 27" 5K screen ENVY WINS. Unsurprisingly, the cost/hardware/performance ratio for the iMac is rather poor compared to the Envy. Whether you like it or not, the Apple tax is a tad painful to bear here. The Envy's hardware architecture is more up-to-date, and in terms of sheer hardware performance offers a much more attractive package (with perhaps the exception of the screen depending on your preferences). The iMac 27"5K is screaming for a hardware update in comparison. A similar somewhat higher performing CPU equipped iMac 27" with less storage would be: i9-9900KF, Radeon Pro Vega 48 8GB, 512GB SSD, 16GB. This configuration would cost $3449.00 On memory $100 could be saved by purchasing it from an external vendor instead of Apple. But the graphics card would still be under-performing compared to the current-gen RTX2080, and this config misses 1TB of storage compared to the base Envy configuration. On a side note, I noticed HP offers an instant $200 savings on this Envy config, and a free game bundle. WINNER? I will leave that up to you! PS I heard rumors that the iMac is supposed to be updated this year? The iMac 2019 was released over a year ago.

Does anyone here remember the old Canvas? It used to be a design application that combined image editing, vector editing, and DTP all in one package. It actually still exists, and the reason why I bring it up is because the current owners/developers redirected their efforts towards CAD users (architects, product designers, etc.). It is mostly still the old Canvas, though: "sprites", and old archaic looking image adjustment windows which look like Photoshop 6 (NOT CS!) clones. But it is totally targeted towards technical manuals, specs, diagrams, etc. output. It will import just about any CAD format. For fun, I downloaded the trial version, and I am amazed at how little has changed under the hood in regards to the basic usability of the program - it feels extremely old-fashioned in places (the sprites! OMG I remember using those in the nineties!). The core functionality doesn't seem to have changed much, but a LOT of CAD/GEO stuff got bolted on top of it since last I used it. The GUI, however, is pretty much exactly as I remember it from over two decades ago. To be entirely honest, it feels a bit like a failed experiment. It has animation documents, but incredibly primitive animation options. It offers master pages, but it seems only one (1) master page per document is available. It is pretty much everything I expected from a CAD community targeted application, and would immediately turn off graphic designers because of its GUI. Anyway, I think it wouldn't hurt if a couple of CAD formats were supported by Affinity. Although to attract CAD/GEO people away more functionality and precision ought to be added. Merely import of DWG and DXF isn't going to cut it. Learn from CanvasX, and improve on it, because if such an old-fashioned design app is able to grab a fair chunk of that market.... There is definitely a market out there for a newcomer.

I installed the beta two weeks ago, and it shows promise. But rental only? No, thanks. I AM OUT. Uninstalling tonight: there's just no point spending any more time in it for me personally. Thanks for the heads-up, though: I hadn't noticed their pricing FAQ, and had started to learn and use it, and you saved me losing a lot of valuable hours of my life. 🙂 I'll stick with Hitfilm Pro, Blender, and Resolve (which is adding Afx type functionality anyway).

Serif would be committing commercial suicide if they did. Blender, anyone? Free, powerful, innovative. As long as Photo gets some 3d tools for texturing it will be fine.

There is now: Krita! https://krita.org/en/item/first-krita-beta-for-android-and-chromeos-in-play-store/

Leave Photoshop for animation, and load up OpenToonz instead: save your work as a layered PSD from Affinity, load the PSD as a 'Level" in an OpenToonz Scene, each layer is imported as a layer which can be animated (tweened) directly in OpenToonz, or load the layers as frames in one layer. Groups can be loaded as subscenes as well! OpenToonz will export to animated GIF if you point it to FFMpeg. Completely free, FAR more capable as an animation app than Photoshop, and a joy to animate with (in particular compared to Photoshop!). Get the latest build here: https://github.com/opentoonz/opentoonz_nightlies/releases

In the simplest of terms: I used the OP's original image with the baked unsharp mask effect, and then applied an unsharp mask adjustment layer effect in reverse with negative layer opacity. That is exactly what the OP is trying to achieve: undoing/reversing an unsharp mask effect. But as I said, it cannot restore all original information, of course, because applying unsharp mask will always destroy some information. *edit* I tested this method with other images with an obvious unsharp mask filter applied to them, and it depended on the particular image how successful this move is. In some instances lower than -50% layer opacity would be too fuzzy. In other images it did not really help that much unless other adjustments were made afterwards, or some masking to protect details. To visually clarify the layer stack (notice the -100% layer opacity):

One tip, aside from overall project organizational considerations: absolutely ensure that you have some kind of automated backup AND versioning system in place. With more complex project ALWAYS use versioning (never keep working with the one single unique project file) in case your file is corrupted somehow. I use a utility called Dsynchronize on Windows to mirror my project folder to another drive (in real-time while I work). The same tool will automatically keep versions as well, if preferred. I agree with you that editing one image at a time works fine if each one needs different processing and dimension settings. Otherwise I would use batch processing.

Exactly! Node-based compositors generally have way more non-destructive and flexible options for image editing. When I explain this concept to users familiar with node-based editing, they generally immediately understand what I am talking about. It is a cool trick in your toolbox to have access to. I wish and hope that Affinity will consider implementing an expanded layer opacity range as well, because it is forward-thinking, rather than sticking with old-fashioned 25 year old Photoshop concepts.

Es ist möglich EPS Dateien um zu wandeln in SVG mit dvisvgm. Ist aber nicht gerade ein benutzerfreundliches Programm, sondern ein Befehlszeilentool. Designer hat keine Probleme mit SVG und kan dieses Format lesen. https://github.com/mgieseki/dvisvgm/releases