af Photo NOT precise

[Thomahawk]

It seems af Photo does not work pixel precise. I have a pixel layer with text. When I copy parts of it, the copy is not identical, in fact, it gets blurred and blurred again every time I move the copy around. (see example below, I copied the number 1 from the left side and put it on the right side)

I am certainly again missing some kind of setting, right?

[walt.farrell]

First, @Thomahawk, you need to recognize that unlike Designer and Publisher, Photo always uses a raster-based (pixel) view for its display. In Designer and Publisher you have a choice of vector, pixel, or dual view for your projects, but not when using Photo.

In part that means that when zoomed in beyond 100% zoom your text may appear pixellated, even if it is perfect.

So, try viewing at 100% and see if it still has a problem. Next, save the file as a .afphoto file, Open it in Designer or Publisher, and see how it looks there. The default in those applications is to use the vector view, but you might check View > View Mode to make sure you haven't changed that.

[R C-R]

16 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Next, save the file as a .afphoto file, Open it in Designer or Publisher, and see how it looks there.

Or export from Photo to a vector format like svg, pdf, or eps & open the exported version in Designer, Publisher, or any other app that supports rendering text as text or vector objects rather than as raster images.

Unless you add an effect or whatever that forces the text to be rasterized, exporting to these formats will preserve the resolution independence of the text, either as a text objects or as individual curves depending on the format. So like Walt said, it is only the view that is pixelated, not the text itself.

[Thomahawk]

Thanks, guys. But thats not it, you are completely missing the point.

Pixel based applications should be pixel perfect. Copy a group of pixels, the copy must be exactly the same (I am talking about copy a part of an image and place the copy on that same canvas, here). You can see the example: The "1" copy on the right side is blurred (or additionally antialiased). I have never experienced such imprecision in Photoshop. Copies are identical there. In af Photo they are not. Thats not okay for professional work.

[walt.farrell]

Ok, we may be misunderstanding you.

Please attach a sample .afphoto file that demonstrates the issue, so we can see what you've done and what you're seeing.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, Thomahawk said:

Pixel based applications should be pixel perfect.

If by "pixel perfect" you mean always aligned to pixel boundaries, that is not a given, particularly for text objects (which are not pixel based to begin with).

[MikeW]

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

If by "pixel perfect" you mean always aligned to pixel boundaries, that is not a given, particularly for text objects (which are not pixel based to begin with).

This is a screen shot from my editor. The original is missing the end numbers. I copied an pasted. No type of so-called pixel grid, etc. Zoom factor is 500%.

The duped numbers on the end look pretty much exactly as the one I copied. Affinity applications could work better in these situations.

[Medical Officer Bones]

2 hours ago, Thomahawk said:

Thanks, guys. But thats not it, you are completely missing the point.

Pixel based applications should be pixel perfect. Copy a group of pixels, the copy must be exactly the same (I am talking about copy a part of an image and place the copy on that same canvas, here). You can see the example: The "1" copy on the right side is blurred (or additionally antialiased). I have never experienced such imprecision in Photoshop. Copies are identical there. In af Photo they are not. Thats not okay for professional work.

I assume you turned on "Force Pixel Alignment"? If not, Photo will work with decimal pixel values, resulting in ugly anti-aliased copies when positioning to a half-pixel value, for example.

The trouble is that if you already moved bitmap objects, turning on this setting does not fix the issue initially: first the object needs to be moved again, and then the setting kicks in. And when "Move by Whole Pixels" is active too, the blurred version will not "unblur". So turn off this option first, then turn on Force Pixel Alignment. Then move the bitmap, and it should clear up.

The combination of these two settings can be a potential pixel art killer, so be aware of the effects.

[Medical Officer Bones]

PS if you are looking for a reason for this behaviour in Photo: I believe all Affinity products use the same "viewport rendering" engine under the hood, and in applications such as Designer and Publisher decimal pixels make a lot of sense, because vector applications do not work with pixels. But Photo forces the viewport to be rendered into the pixel resolution we choose when the document is created, and MUST convert bitmap images placed at decimal positional values to that "native" resolution somehow. Which means an interpolated version of the original bitmap is generated in the view. Unless the Force Pixel Alignment option is turned on before working with bitmaps objects. This behaviour is confusing to Photoshop users (and not only Photoshop users).

[R C-R]

47 minutes ago, MikeW said:

The duped numbers on the end look pretty muck exactly as the cone I copied.

What cone do you mean? 

[MikeW]

"much" and "one." Sorry. Corrected the post...

[Cecil]

50 minutes ago, MikeW said:

"much" and "one." Sorry. Corrected the post...

muck described your point...

[R C-R]

10 hours ago, MikeW said:

"much" and "one." Sorry. Corrected the post...

Maybe I'm just being dense, but even with the correction I am not sure what you were trying to show. What editor were you using & what did you copy & paste? Was it a text character (an object) or what? What should it have looked like that would have worked better?

[MikeW]

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

Maybe I'm just being dense, but even with the correction I am not sure what you were trying to show. What editor were you using & what did you copy & paste? Was it a text character (an object) or what? What should it have looked like that would have worked better?

You are...

The image I used had the numbers 100 & 200. I copied the pixels of the 1 & 2 from the front and pasted them as a new layer and moved that layer to the end so the numbers are now 1001 & 2002.

Which image editor I used isn't important...but it wasn't APhoto as I no longer even have it installed. I have three image editors installed and the results are the same for each one.

So my point is, at least in comparison with the OP's screen shots, it would seem that APhoto could do a better if any of the 3 image editors I use can do a better at this task.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

The image I used had the numbers 100 & 200. I copied the pixels of the 1 & 2 from the front and pasted them as a new layer and moved that layer to the end so the numbers are now 1001 & 2002.

But at least in Affinity what you get depends on exactly where you place each pixel layer, like whether one or both are aligned to pixel boundaries -- what I believe @Thomahawk meant above as "pixel perfect."

That option is available in Affinity apps (via the "Force Pixel Alignment" button plus maybe moving misaligned pixel layers slightly if you have not started with it enabled) but otherwise they are not going to second-guess or overrule where a user wants to place a pixel layer on the canvas.

Of course, it would be much simpler & require less work to use text objects to begin with, particularly if the file is going to be exported to a file format that supports text objects, but I get that isn't always an option.

[MikeW]

5 minutes ago, R C-R said:

But at least in Affinity what you get depends on exactly where you place each pixel layer, ...

That option is available in Affinity apps (via the "Force Pixel Alignment" button plus maybe moving misaligned pixel layers slightly if you have not started with it enabled) ...

And yet in no other image editor I use depends upon some force pixel alignment or depends where I move the copies. Just like the OP and Photoshop.

Which is why APhoto could use improving.

[R C-R]

11 minutes ago, MikeW said:

And yet in no other image editor I use depends upon some force pixel alignment or depends where I move the copies.

I really do not understand why anyone would expect any of the Affinity apps to work exactly like any other editor they might also use, image oriented or not, in this or any other respect.

AP is not a cheaper, subscription free version of Photoshop. Anyone who expects that is going to be disappointed because it was never intended to be. I doubt that will ever change. Personally, I am very happy about that, in part because there are many things I do not like about how Adobe does things over & beyond the subscription model that company seems intent on forcing on users of its products.

But that is just me. As always, YMMV.

[MikeW]

5 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I really do not understand why anyone would expect any of the Affinity apps to work exactly like any other editor they might also use, image oriented or not, in this or any other respect ...

I only expect that Affinity products work properly. As always, YMMV.

5 minutes ago, R C-R said:

... AP is not a cheaper, subscription free version of Photoshop.  ...

Why bring this up? I'm not expecting a clone of anything. Again, I just expect Affinity products to work properly, especially with such simple tasks. As always, YMMV.

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

... Personally, I am very happy about that, in part because there are many things I do not like about how Adobe does things over & beyond the subscription model that company seems intent on forcing on users of its products...

I'm glad you're happy. Others may not be so happy when simple, even routine tasks, do not work properly and/or as expected. As always, YMMV.

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

... But that is just me.

I doubt it's just you. But you are inconsistent. For instance your thread about the two-node thing. Why should that function work properly in, well, every other vector design application I use? Why not be happy that AD doesn't work as per other applications? As always, YMMV.

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, MikeW said:

I only expect that Affinity products work properly.

If you are suggesting that the only "proper" way for any app to work is by forcing what is often referred to as "pixel perfect alignment" then I cannot agree that it is the only proper way for them to work. 

[MikeW]

16 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If you are suggesting that the only "proper" way for any app to work is by forcing what is often referred to as "pixel perfect alignment" then I cannot agree that it is the only proper way for them to work. 

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. 

The image I uploaded doesn't matter where I move it. I never turn on such a setting. And it would be near impossible to align the numeral on a pixel grid anyway. 

I doubt the issue with the OP's image has to do with pixel alignment. Once the numeral was copied, it should have expressly represented those pixels no matter where it was moved to. 

[R C-R]

44 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I doubt the issue with the OP's image has to do with pixel alignment. Once the numeral was copied, it should have expressly represented those pixels no matter where it was moved to. 

I do not understand what you mean by "expressly represented those pixels." At that point they are just a group of pixels, not a numeral or any other text character or glyph. To look right when combined with other pixel representations of numerals or other text items moving them out of alignment with the pixel grid would sometimes be necessary (like to preserve the illusion of proper character spacing).

Besides the OP specifically said "Pixel based applications should be pixel perfect," which implies to me that this is all about pixel alignment.

[MikeW]

Do you believe the OP's results are good enough?

[R C-R]

Just now, MikeW said:

Do you believe the OP's results are good enough?

For what?

[MikeW]

RC-R, it's not a difficult question to understand.

Do you believe that Affinity Designer in the following thread can improve?

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/100671-emboss-effect-fix/&tab=comments#comment-539473

I mean, its results "are not like the other applications" listed in that post. If you believe it is, please post in that thread the type of drivel this thread has evidenced from you.

Do you believe the results are a bug and/or needing improvement in your own two-node thread? If so, why? Why should AD behave like other applications?

I don't think the results of what the OP posted in this thread are good enough. So I'll leave you to obfuscation about this topic and the two I have ask for your response in this post.

[R C-R]

9 hours ago, MikeW said:

Do you believe that Affinity Designer in the following thread can improve?

The OP is talking about copying & pasting part of a pixel layer in Affinity Photo. It isn't a text object, the app being used is not Affinity Designer, & it is obvious from the screenshot in the first post that it is zoomed far enough in to show individual pixels. If you look closely, the non-white part of the screenshot is only about 32 pixels wide, so there is no way to avoid a very pixelated look at that zoom level, even if everything in it was "pixel perfect" & the pasted parts were spaced as evenly as they would be if a text object had been used, which they are not.

This is not a bug, just a consequence of AP always displaying a raster image view of the work, as Walt mentioned in the first reply, plus devoting so few pixels to a display of 4 already rasterized numerals.