Jump to content

TestTools

Members
  • Content count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TestTools

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

150 profile views
  1. TestTools

    TestImage with flaws and questions...Designer

    Hi Owen...thanks for the response. I will try some of these precision aids, as you describe. RE: false hairline cracks. Unfortunately these false cracks show up on TIFF files sometimes. Though I know what you mean...sometimes not, sometimes yes. My export is to a 4K projector on a 40+ foot screen...which shows all flaws. Sorry for delay in response...been on the road away.
  2. TestTools

    TestImage with flaws and questions...Designer

    Thanks gdenby, Yes, my computer is set for the EU method of a comma being the same as the US 'point', so you are seeing the method that I used correctly. I hadn't thought of the anti-alising connection, but that is what got me onto the solution. I had a block that I had turned 90° then butting them so they'd be adjoining each other with a snap...but found (with extreme close up magnification) that in some occasions one side would 'tilt' by a pixel and take an overlapping pixel 'dither' or one other side would have a hairline space, which would show up as a whole pixel when turned to a 16bit TIFF. And then I'd notice that the x and y positions were no longer on whole numbers as they once were...and there would be no way to get them to be exact whole numbers anymore by arrow keys or moves with the mouse...until I realised the answer was adding precision to the angle....and then the size...and the position. Thus, indeed, that is when and how the extra precision idea took form and proved itself...and even with that, it is not perfect, but it solves 80% of the problem. I still get these hairlines...perhaps exaserbated by my 5K retina screen (yours too I imagine.) What is the next step...how do I report this to a tech wizard? Oh, and wow. How is that 12inch iPad working for you? I have the 1st Pro generation. I bought Affinity Photos for it, but Photos is not my thing. Can't wait for Designer on the iPad.
  3. TestTools

    TestImage with flaws and questions...Designer

    In regards to adding exif data, I just downloaded EXIFData, which is a powerful Terminal Command line tool...and while looking for how to use it found a front end for it – SetEXIFData – at: https://marc.vos.net/downloads/setexifdata/ Wow! ...how cool and amazing.
  4. Hi; I hope no-one minds if I ask advice while also sharing... I created this 4096x2160;16bit;P3 file as part of a series of test images for checking a cinema auditorium. Obviously, it is using cone gradients of the primary and secondary colors, then flipping them around to meet up in a pattern. One major problem that I have had is getting each 1000x1000 square to exactly butt up against each other without leaving a fine (fine, fine, fine) line between them. It shows on the ADesigner screen image and shows up in the TIFF image (12-bit TIFF is what is required for the transfer to a cinema projector file.) I have spent hours (iMac with 5k screen) futzing and finally came up with the technique of putting a strip of color behind the two blocks and applying a gradient to that (not perfect perfect, but pretty close.) I found that by laboriously going to each block and instead of leaving the "transform" numbers as they are, that if I go through each one and put in a bunch of zeros after the number that the blocks gets closer to being perfectly together. In other words, instead of X position of 48 I type in 48,00000000 or for W and H of 1000 I type in 1000,0000000000 ... and also very importantly for R, 90 must be 90,000000000 – I just put in an arbitrary number of zeros, but it seems to straiten out. Now, maybe I didn't have 'whole numbers' turned on early in the process, and that would have solved the issue. I tried that later and it doesn't seem to always help – and things seem to shift (dither between ± points) if I don't give it the precision of the added zeros. I'd just like to hear from others as to whether this has come up with you before (or if I am the only psychotic doing things where this matters?)? Also, what I am learning today and what I originally came to the forum for, is if there is a way to add exif data within Designer? Anyway, thanks! Good luck to us all... WhitePriSec.afdesign WhitePriSec1.tiff
  5. TestTools

    Cinemascope

    Your memory is correct John. That was the way that they could effectively use the film. Now, the product delivered to the cinema theater has had the magic done in post-production. The chips in the projector just plays the file through a ‘normal’ (very expensive) high contrast lens.
  6. TestTools

    Cinemascope

    Just in case you are doing this work so that it can go to a cinema projector with ‘Scope settings, you might consider that modern cinema uses digital cinema projectors that are pixel based – each color on the screen is sent through the lens from chips that have an exact number of mirrors creating the pixels. So, though your ratios are correct I just wanted to put in the record, for anyone’s future use, the exact pixels dimensions. There are two standard, defined sizes, Flat and Scope, and two standard projection ‘sizes’, 4K and 2k. Flat 4k (1.85:1): 3996 x 2160 Flat 2k (1.85:1): 1998 x 1080 Scope 4k (2.39:1): 4096 x 1716 Scope 2k (2.39:1): 2048 x 858 If your picture is going to be used through a projector, one thing to be certain of is: don’t include the black bars on your picture. If you do the internal settings will likely squeeze the picture in some manner that you won’t desire. Another thing to be concerned with, if your photo is going to a cinema projector, is that the cinema standard is 12 bit TIFF, so export to 16 bits, not 8. It is better that the DCP (Digital Cinema Package) creation tool converts the 16 bit image than an 8. Good luck to us all. CJ Flynn cinematesttools.com
  7. TestTools

    [AP] Modern postcards

    Very subtle and supple...keep up the good work.
  8. Oh my gawds, No...this is a horrible illogic. Take, for example, the instance I just had. Instead of hitting Cmd-Z a couple dozen times to go back to something that got erased, pick it up and Cmd-Shift-Z to get back to now with all the changes, this takes me back to grab that piece and doesn't allow me to come back~! How could that be a good idea? Now, if I start making changes that start a new History line, sure, get rid of all the changes...but now I have to repeat them all again...what, am I a robot? Now, the program and computer are the robot.
  9. Bonjour ch22 Did you get further on these questions? Has the latest version of the software improved these bugs that you found? I come to this post while researching how to make a training package, as you wrote. What I want to do is come up with something like this Vimeo lesson, but with Affinity Photo and/or Designer. Good luck to us all...
  10. I have looked as best I can in the Help and in all the menus for Skew and Shear, but can't find those commands at all. Please assist. Thanks.
  11. TestTools

    Vespa Girl.

    So very fun on a bunch of great levels, from basic design to subtle finishes.
  12. MBd, thanks. "if you don't rescale on export, the resampling does not make any difference" Are you certain of that? I really want it to be true. I mean, I'm not calling you on it, I'm just a newbie with AD and trying to figure this out. What I know is that on a big screen it looks extremely bad, but there are several points of potential failure that I have to double check. Thank you for giving me some clues. Speaking of clues, any idea how to improve the smaller fonts? If I could use PDF, I would since it scales so well...but it is only 8 bit and I need 12. Indeed, it is one of several slides for checking projection and monitors. It gets matched up with audio test sounds as well.
  13. I changed the file to put the straight lines onto exact integers, with snap and by typing. And I changed the MTFs to include some lines that are separated by 2 pixels in addition to the pairs separated by only 1. I have made several exports and get improved results, but not great white lines. The MTFs are good, maybe even fine enough, but the long lines that were OK horizontal top and bottom are now as grey as the sides are. And the fonts next to them are all broken up on rendering...is there a different solution for rendering fonts. ...or do I need bigger fonts? And the 10% line is white on the horizontal, but not on the vertical – which means that I still don't have the right position, or that the algorithm is not looking both ways correctly perhaps. I still would like to know why there can't be a direct 1 for 1 pixel render instead of a resample. My drawing is the same size as the output. I don't need a resample. I've tried the drawing as Photo and as Print...perhaps one time as Devices...sd Ideas? I can't settle for 'good' and 'good enough' on this project? Thanks Alignment Flat 4096Photo.afdesign
  14. Good idea on the snapping – thanks. I'll give it a try and report back.
  15. Hello; I have read as much as I can, and experimented quite a lot, but I am still getting what I think are odd artifacts while exporting ...though I don't know what level of perfection is possible. (I need perfect.) My files, one included, is 4096 x 2160, which is also the size that the projector wants. I also need to export to TIFF. Understanding enough to barely get my feet wet, I thought that I would hit Export and a pixel of the same color and size would show up at the right point on the matrix. Now I understand that is illogical for diagonal lines and curves in circles in fonts. I've also learned that for a graphic like this that Nearest Neighbor gives the best results...but not uniformly. (See, for an interesting explanation: <http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/10931/what-is-lanczos-resampling-useful-for-in-a-spatial-context/14361#14361>) As you can see in the drawing, there are 20 single pixel white lines separated by 4 pixels width of black on the sides and top and bottom. When exported the top and bottom turn out nice (maybe a stray extra pixel at the ends in certain experiments), but the sides turn distinctly grey. There is also a line that goes around the 10% boundary that is white top and bottom but grey on the sides – you can see it where they join that it isn't an illusion. There are little bugs of fine lines all around – on the layers they're called MTF. They are single lines separated by single black at different angles. They were all derived from the same drawing, then flipped and rotated. After exporting some of them are completely smeared, some are ok on the horizontal, not many ok on the vertical. If there is a logic to why the ones on the top right side are better than the ones in the center, I'd like to learn it. Cranking up the dpi to 6400 seems to improve some of the finer fonts, though some sites seem to say that it shouldn't. I just learned the "Turn off Embed Metadata" trick and that maybe is improving some smearing items, so I'll make a complete workflow test tomorrow. But the white lines still turn grey so that isn't optimum. I've tried variations with every resample option. 1) How close to perfect should I expect? 1a) Should I be doing some pre-treatment before exporting perhaps? 2) When exporting to the same size as the drawing, is there a way to turn 'Resample' OFF? as I really don't want resampling in this case...or is that just a different name for the function of how the rasterization is down. 3) Is there some logical reason that the horizontal lines are doing better than the vertical? 4) Is it ridiculous to get white and black lines as close as a pixel away and expect them to export that way? 5) I also need to take this down to 2048 x 1080 for other projectors. So far they look a mess when I just export this drawing to the lower size. Is there some way to do this vector resizing easily or do I have to redraw things? Many thanks. Alignment Flat 4096.afdesign
×