Jump to content
tmvideo

Document resize (decimal pixel size)

Recommended Posts

Not sure how this could be a feature. As a user I would rather like to know the exact output size instead of guessing if Affinity would save this to 3397 or 3398 px height. My 2cts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Friksel said:

Not sure how this could be a feature. As a user I would rather like to know the exact output size instead of guessing if Affinity would save this to 3397 or 3398 px height. My 2cts

Not sure what you mean.

It's not being saved as either 3397 or 3398. It's 3397.1 (actually, 3397.059 with a few more decimal places), which is the only value possible while maintaining the proper aspect ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tmvideo said:

Is it bug or feature?
 

I think it's not a bug.
The ratio of the image is 3,0026 : 2
Hence it results 5100 / 3,0026 * 2 = 3397,1
the decimal places are rounded to 0.1
Affinity would save the image to 5100 x 3398 px
Maybe can Serif  comment that .

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gnobelix said:

Affinity would save the image to 5100 x 3398 px

While it is in native format (.afphoto) I think it really be 5100 x 3397.1 px.

It's only when exporting that something must be done with the fractional pixel. And yes, at that time, it would export as 5100 x 3398 with a thin (approximately .9 px) border, either transparent or white.

If one doesn't want that fractional-pixel border, one can crop it out.

Share this post


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

I think it's not a bug.

Had never seen it before in other software.
Mathematically it is correct but looks weird for raster image editor where the pixel is a smallest element of image (despite of subpixels in hardware).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 7:50 PM, tmvideo said:

Had never seen it before in other software.
Mathematically it is correct but looks weird for raster image editor where the pixel is a smallest element of image (despite of subpixels in hardware).

Serif solved it correctly. For further changes, the ratio would be distorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably better to maintain precision in the file until it's exported. For a vector->pixel-art-based approach, pixel-level precision would be better and maybe add a setting to maintain whole pixels (which already exists btw)... but for a photo, it seems fine to keep this as the default until export.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • 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.