Jump to content

HuniSenpai

Members
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HuniSenpai

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's alright! Some reply is better than no reply. This was an odd glitch for sure, but it was part of the whole "refine edge only works once per document" glitch. This glitch has been fixed in the latest 1.7.x version now :)! So the strange blue thing was certainly odd, but it seems to have been automatically fixed anyways. I haven't experienced it once since this last update. Thank you for the reply anyways, though!
  2. Got it. One question, what if you define the outer boundary as being the absolute limit if you jitter the brush slightly in the canvas, roughly in place? Because it seems to require some movement to start flowing. Also, I did some testing, and the preview circle is in fact incorrect. I did a brush size of 1381px, and the preview circle was actually about 1110px in diameter (dunno why they're different lol). Moving on, I decided to test the actual size depending on the flow. The results suggest that flow increases logarithmically, in a somewhat predictable manner. What I did for my very non-scientific testing is jiggle my mouse very slightly to get the ink to flow, and I did that for a while until the very outer edge stopped growing. About 30 seconds for each circle. I then measured the size using guides and noting down x coordinates and by using the transform tool to find the very edge of each circle. I did this test for 1% flow, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Here is a graph of actual size plotted against flow %. The horizontal red line represents the actual size of the preview circle that I measured. You'll see that, as the flow approaches 1%, the preview circle becomes accurate. Here's the graph: The actual brush size, according to Affinity Photo, was 1381px. I'm not certain where the program gets this number from, but I have a guess that it's just doing a simple average of the maximum brush size and the minimum brush size, which corresponds with 100% and 1% flow rates, respectively. So the size at 100% flow was 1680px, and the size at 1% flow was 1112px. The average of those two ([1680 + 1112] / 2) is 1395px, which is pretty close to Affinity Photo's size of 1381px. However, this is not a good way to do things. Because the graph is logarithmic, not linear, the size hangs around the 1600s and high 1500s most of the time, and this 1381px size is only accurate at about flow 14.23% (in this case). Not at around 50% flow, like you'd intuitively think. You can't just take the average of the two range extremes on a logarithmic graph in order to get the average value. You can do that with linear functions, but not with other types. The appropriate way is to take the integral of this function from 1% to 100% (area under curve), and then multiply that by 1 / (100 - 1). That will give you the true average value of the function -- it's called the Mean Value Theorem. Since I don't have access to the function (i'm sure it's written somewhere in the code, though, and if it's not, you can take a lot of data points by hand and interpolate), I will do an approximation. I used the trapezoidal rule in tandem with the mean value theorem to find the approximate average of this function. The actual average size across all of these different flow rate samples is about 1598px, and not 1381px. All of this is pointless though. All of this feels like a work around to the problem. The real solution is to have an outer circle, outside of the current preview one, that shows the very farthest that the brush stroke can land if you were to theoretically keep wiggling the brush back and forth forever. The size of this outermost circle would be dictated by the above graph, brush size, and by the hardness. You'd need to come up with a multivariable function that includes hardness, brush size, and flow, but it can absolutely be done. If you can't (it's understandably difficult to do) you can just do some sample points and interpolate, it'll be accurate enough. And, at the very least, something is better than nothing. Might be hard to interpolate a multi-variable function though. P.S I try not to use very low flow because of what seems to be an oversight; a very low flow only seems to use a few different value levels, and it results in a posterized effect when I do enough painting with that brush. I understand why you did this-- it's because these steps should be hard to notice if you're doing subtle brush strokes, as I imagine is intended with a low flow brush. However, if you go slowly with the brush and do a lot of brush strokes, you begin to see these steps. So, as of now, I have to do 100% flow for the best image quality. So, maybe we can fix this problem if we can't fix the flow-preview issue? This would improve the usability of lower flow rates.
  3. Here's a video exemplifying what i'm experiencing, and it's super frustrating when I need to do a shadow by hand, for example: I'm okay if it extends slightly beyond the brush circle, but this is way too much. I have to hold my brush a couple hundred pixels away from the edge just so it'll land where I want it to. This doesn't happen if I use a 100% hardness. In fact, the preview circle changes size as I change hardness! The only time where the preview circle size is correct is when the hardness is 100%. Moreover, the actual size of the circle changes significantly when changing hardness, which I guess is why you're trying to compensate by changing the preview circle (but the preview circle is actually still not quite right). Both of these are at 1817 px size brush, but the one on the left has 0% hardness, and the one on the right has 100%. Look at the size difference (the guides represent the extreme outermost bounds of the layers -- I used Affinity Photo's transform controls to get the actual size, instead of eyeballing it): I'm guessing this is because i'm just using 8 bits per channel, and, as such, the the steps cut off early? In short, I want the preview to show the absolute outermost bounds of the brushstroke, not just where its most intense or something strange like that. Is the preview drawing the circle where the brush is 50% alpha or something? I'm not sure.
  4. Every time I open up a new photo in Affinity Photo, some things are saved, and some things aren't. Quick select, for instance, continues to have the same width as on the previous document. Same for brush tool. But I really, really wish the lasso tool and the refine edge menu would save settings. This means that, if I used polygon lasso tool on add mode with a 2px feather in the previous document, I want that to be the same in the next document. Perhaps even more importantly, refine edge should have a checkbox for "remember these settings." When I'm doing product photography for an Amazon listing, I want the refine edge to look the same on all of the images. Right now, in order to do that, I need to either memorize what settings I used or take a screenshot. That one program that starts with a P had a checkbox for "remember these settings" on the refine edge, and it was a life saver. There's a good chance that there's some logical reasoning why things are the way they are, but these are just my thoughts. Thank you so much :)! Edit: also, btw, when you finish making a selection and you have some feather turned on, can you separate out the "set current raster selection" and then "feather applied" when the person finally double clicks to make selection? I know it seems strange thing, but this is actually a pretty big deal. I don't know about other people, but I've lost 15 minutes of careful lasso selection all because, after finishing the selection, I realize I've had feather turned on, and there's no way to undo just the feather part. This is something that annoyed me both in this program and in that other Ph***sho* program.
  5. Thanks for the reply :)! Love the program btw. It's got a few glitches but I do really appreciate the work that you and others at Serif do-- this program has saved me a lot of money over that one product from that one company beginning with A and ending with "we're going to steal your money with a monthly subscription now" lol!
  6. sorry for the delay. I was busy on the weekend and today. I can't provide a copy of this file in particular since it's for a product photography client of mine, but here's a sample of the same image. It still exhibits the same problem. I'm sure you can go through the undo history but eh, i'm sure it's fine. For some reason it sometimes decides to not happen. I wasn't able to recreate the problem on a different photo. Which is unusual, because I used a .NEF for both of them. The file named "test" used the same kind of procedure (make a selection using lasso or quick select (i've tried both; neither seem to be correlated with the problem) and then copy and paste it onto a new layer.) Let me know if the file (sample.afphoto) does the same sort of thing for you. And "test.afphoto" is an example when the problem doesn't occur. Now that I look between the photos more, it seems like the only difference between the files is that sample.afphoto uses 32bit HDR whereas the test.afphoto uses 16 bit. So it seems to be a glitch pertaining to just HDR images. I am not using an HDR display, so perhaps that is the issue. sample.afphoto test.afphoto
  7. For some reason the matte edges in refine edge sometimes decides to not work, and it instead does a feather-like effect. It's extremely annoying, and I haven't found a pattern to it yet. Is this a feature, or a glitch? When I change it to white background (how I prefer to view the mask) there's a blue halo around the object. I've experienced this for a while now, I do believe it's been a problem since I started using Affinity Photo, and it's not just limited to this version. Just a few minutes ago it was working fine. Edit: also happens when I turn off matte edges and instead do a feather. Basically any edge enhancement that requires varying levels of alpha (i.e. any slider other than smooth) cases the blue. Here's a video:
  8. You need a decent monitor to be able to see it clearly, but there's a white halo around my masked objects when put on a transparent background. However, as you can see when I overlap one object over the other, that white halo is not really there. This was concerning when I first saw it -- after spending 10 minutes editing a photo, I realized that I messed up my mask, leaving white on the edge, and I might have to start over. Turns out that it was just a rendering error. Here's an example:
  9. When I use the picker for white balance in Affinity Photo 1.7.0.367, it doesn't correct tint. I feel like it should? Let me know if this is intentional. I feel like Photoshop and perhaps even some older versions of Affinity Photo adjusted tint as well. Edit: can confirm that Photoshop (even the old, old photoshop CS2 that I have) adjusts both temperature and tint. Here's a video:
  10. I find myself going to press shift or control in Affinity Photo, but I so often find that it does nothing at all on certain tools, while working perfectly on others. I can hold CRL when drawing out a shape to expand it / shrink it from center. I can also do the same when transforming it. I can also do this when doing an image place. But I can't do this when cropping or when placing down a circular or rectangular marquee. Also, why can't I even use the SHIFT modifier key when cropping, in order to constrain aspect ratio? Why do I have to do two clicks in order to change the mode to "original ratio?" It's important to be able to crop from center so that you keep your crop, well, centered. And it's important to have the CRL modifier key for the marquee box and circle selection tools because say, for instance, I want to select something circular. How do I do this? I find the midpoint of the circle, which is the easiest thing to eye-ball, and then click and start dragging while holding crl. Trust me, it is very difficult to eyeball the imaginary bounding-box corners of a circle. And yes, I know that CRL is the modifier key to do a straighten in the crop tool; however, it should change to be the "transform from center" once a person starts cropping. And, you shouldn't have to go into some drop-down menu in order to maintain the original ratio; you should just be able to hold shift.
  11. You are incredible. Seriously. I have no idea what you and/or other Affinity devs did, but the program is running way faster in so many ways. To be honest, even though it's a beta, I'm going to use this instead of 1.6.5 because, after an hour of use, it's already more stable than the last version. It has not crashed yet, whereas the last version would have probably crashed twice already. I still did manage to recreate it, but it wasn't as severe. And I didn't get any audio distortion. The only way that I managed to recreate it was by having a live unsharp mask, and then a whole bunch of live denoise filters. I just kept doing crl + j until I had about 5 of them. Then Affinity Photo went to 100% usage on all 12 threads for more than a minute or two (at which point I closed the program, because I don't like stressing my CPU when I don't need to). It seems like the time it takes to process these denoise filters grows exponentially, since 1 denoise is instant, two is over twice as slow, and then 3 or more can literally take minutes. I'm not sure why it's not a linear performance slowdown; I suppose there's some technical reason in the code. This is the absolute worst latency I managed to get while running the new version (and I was really pushing it hard, zooming in / out / panning around while at 100% cpu usage). I didn't even get into the red this time: Also, the program does not seem to have a memory leak anymore. I just edited 5 RAW photos, ranging from 16 MP to 24MP, even leaving them all open as I went, and I had no slowdown. Affinity Photo 1.6.5 was biting off more than it could chew, and proceeding to choke to death on it. The new Affinity Photo beta still bites off more than it can chew, but it doesn't choke to death in the process. It eventually finishes what you told it to do, without crashing. P.S. oh my gosh they finally allowed you to use HSL as a sort of "replace color" filter. Woooo!!!!
  12. Hey! I will go ahead and download that version. Thank you for letting me know; fingers crossed that the lag is being fixed (especially the DPC latency, that's downright miserable). I'm hopeful for the "fixed memory leak" part of the change log I'll let you know once I've got it downloaded; my internet is pretty slow so it'll take a bit. P.S. I'm using 1.6.5 right now.
  13. Yes, I know that live filters should cause some lag because they are more complicated to do. But read on and you will realize that the lag is a lot more severe than one would expect. I suspect there is a memory leak or something like that, since it gets much worse as time goes on. I know this lag is to be expected, since 24 MP + Live Denoise = lag. But here's where the problem is: I just sat at my computer for 3 minutes straight, with my CPU pinned at 100% on all 12 threads for the entire time. Why? Because I zoomed out, and Affinity Photo had to render new parts of the scene. It caused the program to not go through with any operations (like saving the file) before it finished rendering. And it was not going to finish rendering any time soon. I only had two live unsharp masks (one set to darken, one set to lighten) and I tried to do a denoise afterwards. Affinity Photo did not like that, especially because I had the program open for 30 minutes (and it gets worse the longer the program is open). I had to close the program in task manager. I have a Ryzen 5 1600 6 core, 12 thread processor, 8gb of RAM, running Affinity Photo on an SSD, with a GTX 970 4gb. The program has some hardcore software aging (this kind of software aging) on my system, although it doesn't appear to just be a memory leak. The biggest problem over time is CPU usage, it appears. I find that, as the program is open for a while, my CPU usage likes to go up to 100% more and more often. 100% CPU usage means a lot on my CPU... I don't even see it go above 50% usage when playing a game like Battlefield 1. After editing a few files, the program just crashes. I do close out of images as I go, so I only have 1 image open at once. On top of all of this, I even get DPC latency while applying things like noise reduction, sharpening, etc, meaning that audio distorts while using the program and my mouse cursor even lags. Note, however, that I do not have a DPC latency problem on my PC; all other programs function flawlessly. Here's my Latency while watching a 4K 60fps video on YouTube, something that is notorious for causing dropped frames on people's computers: And here is what happens when I do a few different live filters, like denoise, clarity, and unsharp mask in Affinity Photo: And my CPU usage suddenly looks like this: Even if Affinity Photo goes ahead and uses 100% of my CPU, It certainly should not be causing DPC dropouts... rendering in Blender, for instance, also uses up 100% CPU. But the DPC latency is perfectly fine on my PC while rendering with Blender: I love Affinity Photo, but this general lag in the software has been something I never had to deal with in Photoshop. When Photoshop lagged, it came back from its lag without crashing or causing my mouse cursor to lag or my audio to distort (i've never seen a program cause DPC latency before). Affinity Photo is sometimes faster than Photoshop, like with the Lens Blur tool or Liquify Tool, but it self destructs when doing things like noise reduction, sharpening, etc, and it eventually just crashes. Devs / people of the forums, do you get the same sort of DPC latency when using Affinity Photo? What are your computer specifications? Perhaps Affinity Photo does not like one of my drivers, as DPC latency often comes from driver conflicts.
  14. crl + shift + i to invert your selection, so you can quickly swap between working on one section and working on another section. ----------------------------------------- //the long and annoying way of doing things, although there are a few cases where this method is useful: The other option would be to paste what you have selected onto a new layer, then just jump between the two layers. Only annoyance is that you'd need to do crl + shift + o to select just what's on that layer, without going out of bounds. Although this latter solution is probably more complicated in your situation, it can occasionally come in handy (say, for instance, you're painting and want to paint behind something... it's nice to have everything separated out onto individual layers. So I would do crl + j and starting working with two layers)
  15. This is a little pet-peeve of mine: make image dimensions automatically match clipboard's when you do crl +n for a new document. Affinity Photo has "New From Clipboard" (Crl + alt+ shift + n) but that's a two-handed hotkey and, oftentimes, I only get the object on my clipboard so that I can copy its dimensions. Say I want to make a banner for a webpage. I use Window's snipping tool, take an image, and then put it on my clipboard. Then I just do crl + n, press okay, and bang, done. It is subjective, of course, what's more important: having it be based on what settings you used last versus what you have on your clipboard. As such, this could be added as a setting, allowing users to choose between the two. I would certainly change it to the latter method the first chance I get. Thank you!
×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.