toltec

If you go Edit > Preferences > User Interface, you can turn them off.

I used my tablet mainly for reading the manuals for the various software programs I use on the desktop.
 

I don't know, but I use my Galaxy Tab S3 mainly for making notes and doing wireframes / scribbles for my screendesign work. I'd NEVER design on my tablet, that's what my workstation is for! It's not very productive to work on a tablet. But that's a general issue. Why would I spend 2 hours fiddling with a tablet if I could do the same work (better) on my workstation in just 15 minutes? Just because it's cool? I don't agree.

There are many times more galaxies in space than there are pixels in your star. Does it have to be at such a low resolution?

I think that’s the root of your problems.
 

To get a harder edge would it not be easier to just create a star shape, You can adjust the opacity of the shapes fill to get the star dimensions correct

No.

I will differ from toltec, assuming I am not misunderstanding his reply. You can create a bitmap filled style. The bitmaps remain editable when applied to other works.

You can NEVER set the screen colours to CMYK. Monitors use Red Green and Blue light and RGB light can display far more colours than CMYK can print
Basically, the calibration device will only make your screen display accurate RGB colours. It’s the Soft proof layer that will make the Affinity RGB image look closer to CMYK.
You can’t download an ICC profile for your screen. The calibrator has to actually “see” your screen. It’s like me saying your screen is too bright. How would I know ? . 
Any device should be fine, Spyder , Munki or X-rite. I have a Spyder, so can’t comment personally on the others.
If you set the Pantone colours in Affinity, using the CMYK Pantone Swatches in the swatches panel, you will then be using the physical Pantone swatch to see what those colours will actually print like. The print colours will/should look like the physical swatch  colours. It doesn’t matter what they look like on the screen so you don’t need a Soft proof layer for that. Just do it by numbers.
Why would you want to turn it off? You are looking at the actual colours of the image, not some unrealistic overbright, too red distorted image. OK, maybe I have seen your monitor . You only use soft proof layers to visualise what RGB colours will look like when printed to CMYK. Normally, your calibrated monitor will just display accurate RGB colours and you won’t be using Soft proof layers when editing photographs, I hope 
 

You can also use a gradient map adjustment.

The Colour handle on the left needs to be White.


 
 

You can also use a gradient map adjustment.

The Colour handle on the left needs to be White.


 
 

You can convert it into an editable pixel layer by right clicking and choosing Rasterise. You can’t turn it into a vector (autotracing) because that feature is not in Designer yet.

Damn, you’re  fast

Which is why pixel density on a computer screen is sometimes referred to as pixels (or, more commonly, dots!) per ‘logical’ inch, and why there is a distinction in web design between CSS pixels and device pixels. 

Thanks... sigh

Except that we haven’t discarded them, at least not here in the UK! The Metrication Board was set up more than half a century ago to deal with all this kind of stuff, but it was disbanded before they finished the job. We still have motor car fuel efficiency quoted in miles per gallon instead of litres per 100 kilometres, and we still have speed limits in miles per hour; we also have things which are sold in 454g packets or 568ml cartons because they were originally one pound or one pint and nobody ever bothered to round the quantity up or down.

Hi, Northern_99,
I don't know about cameras, but it was part of my job to set up lighting in a fine art museum. I often worked closely w. the photographers. LEDs do not have a continuous spectrum. They emit a strong blue frequency light, which passes thru various phosphors which re-emit yellow and red lights, but the specifics of those depends on the manufacturer. They are not as bad as fluorescents, but still very unbalanced. In my museum work, it took nearly eight years to find LEDs which were good enoug. This was verified by the archival photographer, who was using a top end Nikon. It had a spectral display, and when a grey card was sampled under the LEDs and the best halogens we had, the LEDs won w. the most balanced spectrum.
So to correct the images you have, if you had the original spectrum (not likely I suppose), you would know which portions of the color curves to balance. Typically, cheap LEDs for area lighting still have a very strong blue component, a much reduced green, and almost no red. I've never become skilled enough in this sort of adjustment. Perhaps someone here knows how to add color to different ranges of the spectrum

If your image is going to be two inches x two inches on the design and the printed page, it needs to be 600 x 600 pixels. If four inches by four inches, 1200 x 1200 pixels. 300 pixels per inch  which equates to dots per inch for your purpose.
IMO, PPI is a stupid measurement, at least for screens. A 27 inch monitor has got the same number of pixels in the 1920 width as a lowly 1920 x 1080 phone. So how many inches are 1920 pixels?
On my monitor 1920 pixels is about 24” on my phone about 5”. That’s quite a big difference in the length of an inch if you use PPI as a measurement.

You're a glass half empty sort of guy, aren't you 

If not convenient for now, buy a laptop but try and get one where the screen display does not appear to change too much as you alter the viewing angle. That will probably do you for a while but be careful how you view it (as I described earlier).
Use a calibration device on it!!!
With the RGB workflow printer, get your proofs made and use a soft proof to match the display to the proof (more or less).
If you are designing in CMYK for the CMYK workflow printer, I would recommend that you use a different approach and buy a Pantone CMYK swatch. Not a ‘normal’ Pantone colour swatch. You need the uncoated part, because obviously materials are not coated.
https://www.pantone.com/color-bridge-coated-uncoated
That will show you what CMYK colours should look like when you use them. Then it’s up to the printer company to match them. Don’t try to do it visually on the monitor, that’s too much like hard work  Literally, ‘print by numbers’.
Design a test page in CMYK using the swatch colours and get that printed but talk to the printers first so they know what you are after and ask for advice. Especially about using Pantone colours etc. They will know best.
A CMYK swatch is interesting because it’s amazing how it shows the limitations of using just cyan, magenta and yellow inks with some colours.
Good luck

Yes, the video works, but I'm afraid I can't help with your no node problem. Sorry.

No.
Well, I can hear something but it is all white!

Thanks αℓƒяє∂
I was out of my depth with the Mac thing, and thus was quoting someone else from an archived reply elsewhere. Thanks for correcting this. And me.
(I only replied because I could see none of the Three Musketeers were logged in [that's you , @toltec & @R C-R ], and I thought Aad would appreciate a quick reply.)
R
 
P.S. I also noticed that in APhoto you can go to View>Studio>Reset Studio. Also you can go to Edit>Defaults>Factory Reset. These will save time due to not having to close and re-open the program.
Reset Studio is safe enough as it just rearranges the furniture, but I haven't had the strength of character to try the Factory Reset. That sounds scary! Would I have to save imported brushes and macros beforehand? Yikes!
...I thought I'd step away from the mouse before I regretted it...
 
 

I'm the good looking one 

Hi @pjglad
Select the adjustment layer in the Layers Studio.
Go to the Channels Studio.
Tap on the "More" button next to the adjustment layer and there is an option to 'Invert' in there.


 
 

If you select the Selection Studio, then select the lasso tool (actually called the Polygon Marquee Tool)

you can change the type on the Context menu

to either
Freehand
Polygonal
Magnetic