Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, R C-R said:

What I am most interested in is what consideration will be given to making the Mac desktop Affinity apps "universal" & how that will affect the future parallel development of the Mac desktop & iPadOS apps (& maybe even the Windows apps as well).

Of course, I do not expect the staff to have much to say about that, at least until Big Sur & iPadOS 14 are released & we begin to see the first "Apple silicon" Macs entering the retail market. Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate about such things. 😁

One of the more intriguing possibilities is what the cost/performance numbers will look like for an "Apple silicon" Mac paired with a 'native' Affinity app will look like vs. pairings with other hardware platforms. 🤔

Fair enough, but that is not the subject of this thread, nor is it what my words you quoted referring to. I was talking WebP export being brought back up, which is the topic of this thread.

To all, Please try to keep this thread on topic


Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

Latest releases on each platform 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 2:28 PM, wigglepixel said:

So WebP looks like the way to go with a JPEG2000 fallback for Safari and jpeg fallback for older browsers.

So I herby kindly ask Serif to add at WebP as a format to the exporter of both Photo and Designer (and Publisher too?). And preferably JPEG 2000 too (for Safari). 

Thanks in advance

Safari now supports WEBP. see https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-notes/safari-14-beta-release-notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 6:39 PM, Patrick Connor said:

I am sure this change by Safari will be taken into consideration at a future Developer (zoom) meeting :) .

That sounds way better then 'because the usage is too low we don't implement it' (so little people will start adapting it as graphics software just don't supply the tools for these modern formats, so usage stay low)!

Thanks for this turn! 😀

Looking forward to webP support in Affinity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 7:50 PM, wigglepixel said:

I am sure this change by Safari will be taken into consideration … Looking forward to webP support in Affinity!

Does this mean the main lead of Affinity product functionality are the abilities of MacOS? This would be a major point for me, not using them. This would be a questionable - because unnecessary - self-limitation to the specifications of others. It is the death of innovation to rank behind others and let them dictate what is useful, what is needed or how things should be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andy Somerfield said:

We have decided to implement WebP export for (hopefully) 1.9.

YES. The only open question is: when will 1.9 be released? Estimated Date available — including year ;)   ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

If we had supported each one, we would now have a massive amount of export code to maintain

In my opinion: no.

Since the formats rarely (typically never) change, it is a question of implementation. Since it is basically just import and export, these are just entries in a drop-down list, which - in a modular concept - is self-maintaining. 

To support the winner of a race only after the race is quite opportunistic. Innovation and progress comes from belief in something. Especially in the field of design, this is the driving force. Users of products provided for this purpose therefore expect this "belief in something" from the manufacturers of their tools. Especially because the support on the way to the goal can contribute significantly to winning.  

17 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

b.) They are new and have either a good chance of achieving widespread adoption or have some unique technical feature which we think has merit.

As far as I know "webp" is no youngster anymore. And unlike the (uncounted) "png/jpeg/…" killers it is supported by chrome and others since years which may be a hint what formats should be supported because of it's expectable spreading.

But "Hooray" Affinity gets it. Let's see how long it takes for the announcements to produce results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

Morning, 

We have decided to implement WebP export for (hopefully) 1.9.

The decision is not solely because it is now supported in Safari - although that doesn't hurt.

In the time I have been working here at Serif (15+ years), there have been hundreds of "JPEG / PNG killer" file formats announced - not a single one has succeeded. If we had supported each one, we would now have a massive amount of export code to maintain which was used by either 1 or 2 people, or more likely nobody. We don't like to remove features which we have added - so we would be stuck with the problem forever.

We generally don't implement new export formats unless a.) They are old but have some unique technical feature which is genuinely useful or b.) They are new and have either a good chance of achieving widespread adoption or have some unique technical feature which we think has merit.

WebP is being implemented because we think it has a high chance of widespread adoption.

Hope this helps,

Andy.

We don't like to remove features which we have added

This reason is persuasive enough.
XnViewMP can import and export hundreds of formats (including webp)
And it's free, and it supports macos and windows.

XnViewMP features extremely powerful, highly optimized 64-bit modern instruction set, and excellent performance.
Bulk import export and bulk tuning are supported.
It is sufficient for such tasks.

This is a very good alternative solution.
Affinity photos should focus on the development and repair of core functions.
I don't want to waste development resources on import exports.
(By the way, thank you very much for fixing LabL Channel 0 Change 128 issue)


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To support the winner of a race only after the race is quite opportunistic. Innovation and progress comes from belief in something."

Opportunistic it certainly is - and I make no apology for it!

I don't consider Photo to be a driving force for adoption of 3rd party file formats - otherwise I would have been pushing JPEG-XR for the last 10 years (in my opinion, it is clearly the best general purpose image storage format which supports HDR and can do CMYK etc. - sadly nobody else in the world cares about it!).

"Since the formats rarely (typically never) change, it is a question of implementation. Since it is basically just import and export, these are just entries in a drop-down list, which - in a modular concept - is self-maintaining."

I agree that updating the 3rd party library code is not a big deal - they rarely update unless some vulnerability is found. The problem is more with UI - each format has a cost (for each platform) in that respect for initial implementation, and a cost for ongoing maintenance as we expand to other platforms or adopt new UI technology on existing platforms.

To be honest, this is likely to become a moot point in future (as we hope to introduce support for 3rd party plugins for file I/O at some stage). We aren't there yet, but until we are we are likely to continue to apply the same loose "rules" I describe above.

Thanks again,

Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

"To support the winner of a race only after the race is quite opportunistic. Innovation and progress comes from belief in something."

Opportunistic it certainly is - and I make no apology for it!

I don't consider Photo to be a driving force for adoption of 3rd party file formats - otherwise I would have been pushing JPEG-XR for the last 10 years (in my opinion, it is clearly the best general purpose image storage format which supports HDR and can do CMYK etc. - sadly nobody else in the world cares about it!).

"

Since the formats rarely (typically never) change, it is a question of implementation. Since it is basically just import and export, these are just entries in a drop-down list, which - in a modular concept - is self-maintaining."

I agree that updating the 3rd party library code is not a big deal - they rarely update unless some vulnerability is found. The problem is more with UI - each format has a cost (for each platform) in that respect for initial implementation, and a cost for ongoing maintenance as we expand to other platforms or adopt new UI technology on existing platforms.

To be honest, this is likely to become a moot point in future (as we hope to introduce support for 3rd party plugins for file I/O at some stage). We aren't there yet, but until we are we are likely to continue to apply the same loose "rules" I describe above.

Thanks again,

Andy.

Your persistence is correct! I support you.
Affinity photos are the Most stunning program I've ever seen, created by you.


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Aftemplate said:

XnViewMP  […] is a very good alternative solution.

If you read the contributions here in the thread carefully, you may notic that a. this a.) was sufficiently mentioned and b.) objectively is no useful contribution to the topic.

If you don't care that you have to change the tool every time you want to create a common format - good for you! However, as the thread clearly shows - from my point of view - quite a lot of people simply see things differently – what is being talked about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true XnViewMP has been mentioned before, but it is not right to have a go at a user for mentioning a work around to a limitation in the software, even if it has been mentioned before. Once WebP is implemented there is no need for a workaround, but suggesting a free one just this once is IMHO OK, just not repeatedly by the same user as if it is a solution. (expecting a contributor to read a whole thread when it gets to this long is pushing expectations, again IMHO. I know others disagree and make their replies having read all contributions)


Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

Latest releases on each platform 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NoSi said:

If you read the contributions here in the thread carefully, you may notic that a. this a.) was sufficiently mentioned and b.) objectively is no useful contribution to the topic.

If you don't care that you have to change the tool every time you want to create a common format - good for you! However, as the thread clearly shows - from my point of view - quite a lot of people simply see things differently – what is being talked about here.

Development resources are limited...
If the development resources are unlimited, I'll agree to add this feature.
Adding this feature to limited development resources will no doubt stifle the core features of affinity photos.
I am willing for  change the tool every time Pay the price. in exchange for stronger core features.
On the premise of limited development resources, I am firmly opposed to adding this feature. (Not now)


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Andy Somerfield said:

(as we hope to introduce support for 3rd party plugins for file I/O at some stage

This is probably the best way to allow implementation of "temporary formats". It could be a general solution for import and export for all file formats in the future. This is what I called "modular concept".

I agree that the current presentation of export formats requires maintenance beyond adding  some code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aftemplate said:

Development resources are limited

I think all of us know that. This thread is not discussing about limitations but pushing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aftemplate said:

This is a very good alternative solution.

51 minutes ago, NoSi said:

If you don't care that you have to change the tool every time

Along with a macro, you don't have to switch apps and return manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NoSi said:

I think all of us know that. This thread is not discussing about limitations but pushing them.

Webp will undoubtedly damage the development resource budget for core features.
That's why I object to adding it (at least for now)
With the third-party tool, XnViewMP has no such concern.
You'll have a stronger core feature and webp at the same time.
Just pay a little: Change the tool at each time.


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oval said:

Along with a macro, you don't have to switch apps and return manually.

… and if you have a hammer you can punch a screw into the wall, too. Are we talking about "workarounds" or "solutions" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

It is true XnViewMP has been mentioned before, but it is not right to have a go at a user for mentioning a work around to a limitation in the software, even if it has been mentioned before. Once WebP is implemented there is no need for a workaround, but suggesting a free one just this once is IMHO OK, just not repeatedly by the same user as if it is a solution. (expecting a contributor to read a whole thread when it gets to this long is pushing expectations, again IMHO. I know others disagree and make their replies having read all contributions)

You are absolutely objective. (Orange) gives you a round of applause.


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NoSi said:

… and if you have a hammer you can punch a screw into the wall, too. Are we talking about "workarounds" or "solutions" ?

If it gives the results you're after than every workaround is a solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NoSi said:

Are we talking about "workarounds" or "solutions" ?

No need to ask. We were told that there will be a solution. Until we have one in 1.9 or later, a macro is better than a manual workaround!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Aftemplate said:

Webp will undoubtedly damage the development resource budget for core features.

To be honest I do not bother about resource budgets – because it is not my part to decide this.

But I can see that the decision to implement webp was made by the development team. Which could be because "core function" is in the eye of the beholder. Or simply a question of relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NoSi said:

… and if you have a hammer you can punch a screw into the wall, too. Are we talking about "workarounds" or "solutions" ?

Change the tool at each time(The price paid is negligible)

Core features are clearly particularly important. (Especially in the current affinity photo growth and evolution)


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoSi said:

To be honest I do not bother about resource budgets – because it is not my part to decide this.

But I can see that the decision to implement webp was made by the development team. Which could be because "core function" is in the eye of the beholder. Or simply a question of relevance.

"core function"

Affinity Photo is a picture editing program,
Not a universal picture format converter.


The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. mentally ill are restricted more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. 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.