Jump to content

Martin Brooks

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Martin Brooks

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Confused: How can an image having more than 512Mpx fit into a 4k file?!?
  2. Thanks for that. I just now tried the Mac print-to-pdf. The results were failed but Affinity Photo behaviour was inconsistent. Tests were performed in the following order: 1. I printed-to-pdf the previously-failed 57.5" image; Affinity Photo did not crash, but the pdf file was only 4k and contained no graphics, just a white background. 2. Without exiting Affinity Photo, I printed-to-CUPS the same image; Affinity Photo did not crash, but the CUPS pdf file was empty (0k). 3. Relaunch Affinity Photo, print-to-CUPS on the same image: crash, with an empty CUPS pdf file. This is the behaviour I experienced in previous tests. 4. Relaunch Affinity Photo, print-to-pdf: crash, generating a 0k pdf file at the requested location. 5. Relaunch Affinity Photo, print-to-CUPS and print-to-pdf with the previously-successful 57" image: success for both. Although the inconsistency is confusing, the result remains: Always fail when slightly larger than 512Mpx; always succeed when slightly smaller than 512Mpx. Could you please confirm that your pdf file contains the printed image? Thanks.
  3. I solved this problem by purchasing ColorThink, which lets me edit the profile, including rendering intent.
  4. By the way Walt, I see that you are on Windows; it would be interesting to know if the same behaviour applies on your platform.
  5. Here is a telling example, starting with the same vector graphics in Affinity Designer: Affinity Photo prints successfully: 360 pixels-per-inch, 57" x 71.2" = 20,520 x 25,991 = 533,335,320 pixels, slightly less than 512Mpx. Affinity Photo crashes on print: 360 pixels-per-inch, 57.5" x 72.8" = 20,700 x 26,219 = 542,733,300 pixels, slightly more than 512Mpx.
  6. I tested Affinity Photo's sensitivity to print dimensions as follows: Using Affinity Designer on a vector graphics image, I exported a 72 pixel-per-inch 430" x 241" image. In pixels, this is 30,931 x 17,356 = 536,838,437 pixels, just less than 512Mpx. Affinity Photo printed it with no problem.
  7. A little research has reveals that Affinity Photo is happy to print an image having less than 512Mpx, but crashes when printing an image having more than 512Mpx. I would like to better understand this limit. The limit is relevant to me because I am printing large, high-resolution images on an Epson 20000. Note: 512Mpx = 536,870,912 pixels = 1/2 Gpx Note: Although Preview has difficulty displaying some images that are larger than 512Mpx, it nevertheless prints correctly even when it can't display. For example, Preview can print a 2Gpx image. Therefore I conclude that the limit is not a MacOS limit, but is an Affinity limit. Hypothesis: Photoshop has this same limit. My print-person uses Photoshop; he reported that he can't print the large images I am giving him -- that's what led me to investigate using Affinity Photo. Method: I export TIFF from vector graphics on Affinity Designer, and then print the TIFF with both Affinity Photo and Preview. For these tests I don't actually print on paper, but instead simply observe whether or not the print command results in a CUPS print job having a non-empty PDF file in directory /var/spool/cups/ . When the image is larger than 512Mpx Affinity Photo crashes almost immediately after pressing "print", resulting in a CUPS job having an empty pdf file. Thanks for any news on this, as well as the possibility that the limit will disappear in future releases. Martin Brooks
  8. Martin Brooks

    offensive splash screen

    1.6.7 on MacOS.
  9. Hello Affinity I like your apps a lot, but every time I open Photo I am struck by the female face image of the splash screen. In this day and age I am surprised that you would go with such a sexist splash screen. It makes me want to not open the app. As I started hunting around for a way to delete this app resource, it occurred to me that I should air my opinion, so here it is. Martin Brooks
  10. Thank you Mike -- It turns out the print service will take pdf 1.4. Furthermore, this service prints RGB, not CMYK. I am now expecting a good result. Related question for Mike or anyone else: The AD Document Setup panel for colour has a "rocker switch" (like two radios buttons, i.e. mutually exclusive) for assigning vs converting the image to the indicated colour profile -- but I am confused about which setting of the switch is which function. It makes sense to press the button for the desired choice -- but that causes the pressed button to recede and be black, and it is not clear to me whether this means that it is selected. Furthermore, when I press "assign" and then "ok", AD appears to recompute the image, whereas when I press "convert" then it does not appear to recompute it; this is further indication that the buttons are backwards. thanks Martin Brooks
  11. I am struggling to manage colour in my workflow from AD to a commercial printer. The commercial print service wants pdf/x-3 2002; I am hoping they can live with 2003 (since that is all that AD offers). More significantly, the AD export panel for pdf/x-3 is not providing me with the opportunity to set the ICC profile or rendering intent. In particular, the AD export panel for pdf/x-3 does not include sRGB or Adobe1998; it includes only the profiles for my own printer (and these are not useful). Furthermore, the ICC option starts off blank, but if I choose any of the profiles then I can't get it back to blank -- and, I have no idea what it means for export when it is blank. Whereas, the later pdf export options (e.g. 1.7) do provide many ICC profile options. None of these provides the ability to set rendering intent. By the way, I can see the difference between colour in pdf/x-3 vs pdf 1.7 (exporting x-3 with the ICC field in its initial blank state, and exporting 1.7 with sRBG) by viewing them in ColorSync Utility. The x-3 export is dull and dark, whereas 1.7 looks as it should. Thanks for any workarounds or advice. Martin Brooks
  12. Hello again gdenby and all, As promised, here are some images with coarser settings. Press the green buttons to see each. Please let me know if these satisfy your curiosity, or whether there are other tests that I can do for you that might be useful. For example, please suggest some images for me to try. By the way, I notice that when downloading shape images by right-click, some browsers sometimes attach the wrong file extension. The extension should be .svg, but I have seen both .svgz and .svg.css -- in these cases you can rename the file to .svg either in the browser dialog or after download. I.e. the file is actually an svg file. From the ShapeVision Gallery: http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/1027091723447502565/index.html http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/860385316933440383/index.html http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/19470188640419895/index.html http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/619611254918745180/index.html Cats & dogs -- images I use to test with deep learning: http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/80277021170244841/index.html http://d3p13rqcqmn2zd.cloudfront.net/563806558909854815/index.html Martin
  13. Thank you gdenby, I would be happy to try to identify an appropriate coarseness that would suit your style of work. Look for a post from me in a day or two. If you would like to suggest some sample images, that would be great. The engineering images that I have are medical, with a concentration in ophthalmology; their image parse may or may not be useful for you. Or cat and dog images ... Thanks for your interest! Martin