Jump to content

Dazzler

Members
  • Content count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dazzler

  1. I'm not sure what you mean by composition area? Can you expand upon that and what you would use it for?
  2. It happens in other software too. It's because if you take a one pixel line and position it half a pixel to the left (the fractional part of the position) it needs to now render that across two pixels (it will most likely do two half opacity lines instead of one full opacity line), to make it look like that's where it is sat. It's called antialiasing and is the whole reason the 'snap to pixel' style constraints exist.
  3. The problem you have is there's not a lot of area available that shows how it would look without the car. It may be easier to clone a light trail in over the car and continue that up beyong the tree line. It's definitely not an easy job that one as either way you have to deal with lots of gradients because of how the lighting is - you'll have to find a way to remove the headlights on the road, otherwise there will be an odd bright spot for no reason. You'll probably need some decent painting skills for this!
  4. Hmmm this seems to highlight a problem (I'd call it a bug?) with the way the brushes are working. I've made a test brush as a PNG, in a similar way at an exact pixel dimension, and exported it (it's 200 pixels height). So I then bring this in as an intensity brush with a width of 200px to match the height of the exported brush image. Things aren't looking too bad, but with just a two point line you can see a problem - if you grab the node tool and slowly drag one end of the line out to make it longer you'll notice that the brush gets stretched, until it reaches a certain length, then it snaps back to allow another repetition to creep in, which then looks squashed. So rather than just extending the brush pattern and repeating it's actually affecting the brush right back up the path. This seems wrong to me - I think there's an issue with the maths in there somewhere. I can only imagine what a nightmare this is to program, but ultimately the brush should IMHO run consistently from the start point and be aligned with the length of the line, so when working on the end of the path it doesn't affect the beginning of the path. Affecting the brush width should really be the only thing that has an affect on the pattern position along the entire length of the path. Also, if my line is the exact length of my original brush graphic and has a brush width that matches the height of the orginal graphic, I'd expect it to align perfectly - it doesn't even come close. Edit: I've reported this as a bug. I have discovered that using Butt Cap on the stroke makes it align perfectly with the original so long as it is the same length, but upon pulling out the end node it still stretches the brush rather than repeating it as I think it should.
  5. I'd also go 8 cores, I have a 6 core PC and just tested doing something in designer whilst looking at the CPU stats and indeed all cores (12 because of the hyperthreading) were being utilised. So with that being the case, in theory with the 6 core you'll get 15.6 - 27 Ghz total, whilst with the 8 core you'll get 18.4 - 38.4 Ghz total. Of course it doesn't work exactly like that due to the way cores are utilised and managed, but as a guide it's probably good enough to go by.
  6. I don't know whether it's just me having a 'forgetful brain' day or what, but is there a way to move the contents of an individual channel? I have a photo where there is for some reason an obvious offset on one of the colour channels (green I think) and I want to shift it back into position, but for the life of me can't seem to do it! I just need to shift the green channel down a bit. Affine is sort of worknig but way too severe ... 1% is way too far. I've tried typing lots of other values (-0.05 etc) but this seems like a really hard way of doing it. Surely there's some way of just moving by dragging a channel contents around? The defringe tool isn't working here either - I think it's not quite the same thing.
  7. Thanks very much Callum, that looks like it's the way to do it, and I was trying to do that earlier but it wasn't working, but I've just reaslied why - I had the layer locked! Doh! It works better if I turn off the 'Show pixel selection' in the view menu, I can see what I'm moving properly then.
  8. To answer this, there is no minimum, but to explain it better you need to understand how it works. So it's working on the law of averages, whereby if you take a single pixel on the image and it had some noise (random value between 0 and 255 for example, although in reality it would be across three channels and unlikely to hit the extremeties of the value range). For the sake of simplicy let's imagine the orignal image without noise should be the value 127. So if the noise on the original image changes the value to 254. You now need another image with noise at a value of 0 to bring that back in line to where it should be ((254 + 0)/2 = 127). Of course noise isn't likely to be that severe, but it's very unlikely that with 2 images the two noise values would cancel each other out perfectly, but in theory the end result of two images should be closer in truth than either one of the images alone. Obviously, the more images used in the process the more they are likely to smooth each other out. In theory, each noisey value should be biased towards the original 'correct' value, so after adding them all up and dividing the result you should be pretty close to the true value. So yes you can do it with any number of images, but the more the merrier. Two images is unlikely to make a lot of difference, but you may see some improvement. Two should still be better than one. However, there must be a point at which adding more images also becomes fairly pointless. The difference in quality between using two and three images will be greater than the difference in quality between 45 and 46 images. The next problem is capturing the images without capturing movement in the image, fine for studio type still shots but not so easy in other situations.
  9. Add a curves adjustment, then under the histogram there is a dropdown selection for the channel (normally set on Master), switch it to blue. Then, just click and drag on the middle of the line in the histogram and drag down a bit ... it's a live preview so you'll see immediately the effect this has on the image. The histogram is showing the levels in the image ranging from shadows on the left to highlights on the right, and you'll see a peak (or maybe several peaks) where most of your image is sat in that range. You can create several points on the curve and drag them around to affect maybe only the darker areas or create an s-curve to enhance or reduce contrast in a particular tone range. By choosing blue channel you'll only be affecting the levels of the blue, therefore having an effect on the hues in the image, pulling down making it less blue and pushing up increasing the blue and making the image cooler. By using curves you can leave the white area alone, whereas colour balance will have a more general effect.
  10. I suppose you can have alternative masks at different opacities stored in a layer and switch between them. That's about all I can find at the moment.
  11. I'm inclined to agree with you Laganama. Although, I'm wondering if there's a use case for it behaving that way.
  12. I haven't noticed that before but it makes sense now you've pointed that out - thanks dutchshader. If you want to get 50% layer opacity you can do it on the circular mask layer that is inside instead - or you can use colour as done in the video, although I prefer the opacity done with the layer settings as I find it easier to interrogate later on.
  13. Check you have your snapping turned on (the magnet button should be depressed), and then if you click the little arrow next to the magnet, check you have 'snap to object geometry' checked. That seems to do it for me.
  14. There is a further step you could take to make this more of a 'standard' vector without utilising the 'erase' layer mode (you may find layer modes can be a bit of a problem with certain printers etc, so I normally remove them if possible). You would select all the small curve layers, then from the menu choose Layer > Exand Stroke. Now the strokes will be shapes with a fill rather than single lines with a thickness. You can now use the Add or Subtract functions quite easily to subtact these shapes from the circle (you'll may need to pull the inner layer back out to the top level to be able to combine it with the circle). I tried this, doing an add first of all to join all the little lines into one shape, then selected the circle and the lines layer and chose subtract to remove the lines layer from the circle leaving the shape you wanted without any funny stuff going on anywhere. There was one little hiccup where the end of one of the lines went beyond it's curve that it joined to, but this can be cleaned up easily enough, either choosing a different end cap setting in the stroke options or by simply editing the end result and removing the little nodes in the damaged area. I think fiddling with the stroke end cap options to avoid the overlap in the first place would probably be the best method.
  15. Here's your file back with those edits done ... so you can see what I've done, and how much simpler the end result is. You will probably need to reposition the inner bits to your liking using the Move Tool, scaling it to fit etc. yarn-logo.afdesign
  16. Ok, first of all, looking at your design this should be fairly easy to create using vectors alone, without the need for pixel layers. As always with graphics software there's normally several ways to achieve the same result, so what I say may not be the best or fastest method. So first of all, get rid of the pixel mask, that isn't necessary in Designer, as the circle itself can be used to clip the other items by simply dragging the other layer within it (be careful when you drag - note that the blue highlights change position as you drag it over or around another layer, and each of these positions has a different effect when you release). What you want to do is simply drag your curves within the circle so it's just a nested layer within it (so the blue highlight should be showing from the bottom of the purple circle layer with a gap on the left hand side). Once this is placed like that all the inner parts will be clipped by the 'parent' layer - the circle. Secondly, get rid of the pixel layer masks within the individual curves - you won't need any pixels here! Once you've done that (you may want to delete the masks one at a time to keep track of what goes where and edit the curves each time), select one of the indivudal curves and switch to the node tool. Where you want the curve to stop and go 'under' the other curves, simply hover over the curve at the intersection of the two curves and you should see a highlighted yellow confirmation that let's you know it's snapping to the intersection. Click to add a point here. Then add another point in the same way where you want the curve to begin again. Then you can select one of these points and choose 'Break Curve' from the context menu at the top of the screen. Then do the same for the other point. (you can actually select both points and do the break curve in one go). You should notice now in the layers panel that your curve has now become three curves. Simply select the one that is the middle of the original curve and delete that layer. Do this for all the remaining curves and you should be good to go, with totally vector, scalable shapes that are very clean and accurate. Hope that helps!
  17. Oooh didn't know about that ... that's kind of neat. I like the way you can adjust the modes (add, subtract, intersect etc), for each internal layer too. I'm now wondering if you can 'flatten' a compound object back out to a non-compound shape - ie. the result as a single vector layer. EDIT: Yes it's right there in the context menu - convert to curves! Nice!
  18. In the stroke properties there's a 'scale with object' tickbox for that.
  19. There are probably a few differences between Mac and PC. On PC it is indeed under Edit > Preferences. There are also other preferences that may have made a difference in how things are appearing. It is frustrating when you are learning this stuff, and often involves a little bit of playing around with the tools and looking in the manual. With the selection brush you should indeed see dots (aka marching ants!) as you make the selection, however if the area that has automatically been selected as your paint the selection happens to go beyond the outside of your viewport then you may not see them. Also, check you are on the correct mode at the top where the tool options are ... you should have 'Add' depressed (darker), not 'Subtract'. Subtract is used to take away from an existing selection, so if you start with that you won't be seeing anything happen as there is no selection to take away from. To remove the black background from a moon picture you can use the Selection Brush Tool, which should work nicely with a clean background, then use the selection as a mask to make the outside transparent, or firstdefence's method is a good and fast workaround where you know the colours aren't too varied. It can fall over in other situations though, so it's a good idea to persevere with learning the selection tools and they will come in handy later for other subjects where you don't have that consistency of colour in the background. You can start to see the problem on the dark side of the moon as that method actually turns the shadow into the blue colour, which may not be what you want. A third method is to draw a shape (circle in this case) over the object, get it aligned (you can turn the opacity of the shape layer down to make it more transparent so you can see it's alignment over the subject) and then convert the shape to a selection by holding CTRL (CMD on MAC) and clicking on the shape layer picture in the layers panel. That will give you a perfect circle selection that will include the shadow of the moon. Selecting the moon layer and pressing CTRL(CMD) + J will duplicate the selection area into a new layer, so you'll end up with just the moon on a layer. You can now turn off the original moon layer and you should have a moon on it's own layer with no background. You can then put whatever you like behind it on another layer.
  20. You can just rasterise the layer. Turn off preserve FX to rasterise them too, so they become part of the image, and you end up with a pixel layer, that you can then crop with the vector crop tool.
  21. I actually think once you've got your head around it, that this is quite brilliant! So, as your original request stated if you just want to use the pen tool then adjust a few points then return to drawing you can do so without even leaving the pen tool, just hold CTRL (CMD?) down in the pen tool allows you modify the existing points, then release to continue from where you left off still within the pen tool (no need to select the end point again). That's pretty neat. If, you have come back to an existing curve later, after doing a million other things, you simply select the last (or first) point on that curve using the node tool, switch to the pen tool and just draw away, no need for having the 'Add new curves to Selected Curves' option. However, if you want lots of separate curves in one item then use the 'Add new curves to Selected Curves' option to draw curves and they will become part of that layer (note that 'curves' appears in the layer panel description rather than 'curve'). If you then want to split those curves into their own layers so you can join them etc. then you can do that with the menu option layer > geometry > separate curves. The opposite is to merge curves into a single layer whic is just above it in the menu.
  22. One thing I can think of that may be stopping you moving something is a locked layer (unlikely if you've just pasted something). Check in the layers panel that there isn't a padlock showing on the layer you are trying to move. If there is, then uncheck the padlock symbol at the top of the layers panel. That would also stop you transforming things so, so I'm still a bit confused as to what is happening for you, and what crosshair you are seeing, as with the move tool I don't an arrow unless I hover over the handles or edges.
  23. Which Affinity software are you using? ..and what is it you are pasting in? In theory you should simply click and drag on the object (not the handles) to move it? That seems consistent across all packages.
  24. The Windows desktop scaling factor is working with my Affinity products. That's if we're talking about the same thing - as in right click on desktop, choose display settings, then adjust the percentage under scale and layout. My monitor isn't 4k though, so it looks like I've dropped back to the mid 90s when I do that! There's also a custom scaling option that lets you put in values greater than 175%! I'm not going to try that, I may never get back again!
×

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.