• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. Very subtle and supple...keep up the good work.
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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.
  7. So very fun on a bunch of great levels, from basic design to subtle finishes.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Good idea on the snapping – thanks. I'll give it a try and report back.
  11. 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
  12. Amazing...thanks again. Indeed; Help is uncharted territory and one suspects that AI will eventually get us out of these Dark Ages. I didn't mention before that I had also spent several dozen hours internet searching and watching Affinity videos. I am writing a post now that will show my ignorance in getting a good TIF export. Hopefully it gets solved as quickly...20 or 30 minutes making a Forum post certainly is better than the dozens of hours looking for that solution too.
  13. Thanks for all the clues R C-R. Here's the problem that someone like me faces. The first instinct is going to the Search under the Help menu. That proves fruitless. Color Picker and Color Panel gets nothing of value. Then, selecting the built in help slowly brings a useless page with a big logo...oh, there's the new Menu symbol...why waste a step? put the glossary on the first page. Whatever. Now what? What to choose. Color? Which of the sub-categories? Pick one. The one you recommended doesn't exist. Ah! Search. Color Picker goes in the wrong direction. Only tells of that feature and the recommended other topics are a rabbit hole, never delivering the idea of Panel. If I had thought of Color Panel, I would have looked in the color panel of the Fill box on the main top bar that I have been using successfully...I would never have thought of going to View:Studio:Color – why would I? And even then the obscure Pref tool changes depending on the style, and I would have given up if I didn't see it right in front of me from my clay's post. Now I know. But, it is beyond cumbersome. And I still can't find Color Panel: Color selection preferences and color models Having used it for a few days, I think I disagree with your concept of Preferences as well. Perhaps it is because I don't like keeping the Color Panel open all the time because the pull downs from the top bar are so convenient but missing that pref tool. But I really believe that it is because I will always now work in 16bit and it is my instinct to set that from the applications preferences panel. But, thanks. Don't mean to vent on you in particular, but in case a Affinity person needs to know how a not unintelligent 32 year user of Mac graphic programs expects to think with his tools and their help.
  14. Thanks for writing all that up Signguy. I learned a lot from your trail. There is a lot of nuance that doesn't become important, or obvious to a general user, until a problem exposes the drama. There's always something to learn.
  15. Thanks to you too MBd for pointing out that link. I have a few other items on my list of things that I can't believe I was the first to notice, and can't find even though searching. I hope they are all already taken care of with a few clues from the crowd of associates.