Joachim_L Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 On my own little research for minimising file size I noticed, that using the Live Filter Denoise produces smaller files than Filter -> Noise -> Denoise. For both ways I used the same values (everything at 100 %) and exported as TIFF without Affinity Layers. Original TIFF = 7.134.526 Bytes TIFF with Live Filter Denoise = 4.229.466 Bytes TIFF with "normal" Denoise Filter = 4.301.104 Bytes Is this because rasterising the Live Filter on export is more aggressive? ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftemplate Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Joachim_L said: On my own little research for minimising file size I noticed, that using the Live Filter Denoise produces smaller files than Filter -> Noise -> Denoise. For both ways I used the same values (everything at 100 %) and exported as TIFF without Affinity Layers. Original TIFF = 7.134.526 Bytes TIFF with Live Filter Denoise = 4.229.466 Bytes TIFF with "normal" Denoise Filter = 4.301.104 Bytes Is this because rasterising the Live Filter on export is more aggressive? My guess: Real-time filters perform some kind of performance optimization at the expense of quality in exchange for faster speeds. The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim_L Posted July 17, 2020 Author Share Posted July 17, 2020 I wish it would be the same, as you can save a Live Filter as an Asset. ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aftemplate Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, Joachim_L said: I wish it would be the same, as you can save a Live Filter as an Asset. They should provide custom settings for live filters: Performance or quality. What do you think? The more restricted you put on the program, the closer you program is to idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl123 Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 28 minutes ago, Joachim_L said: Is this because rasterising the Live Filter on export is more aggressive? Even using the same settings, I think the live filter and the non-live version work slightly differently, hence the differences in file size (?) Joachim_L, IPv6, Mark Ingram and 1 other 3 1 To save time I am currently using an automated AI to reply to some posts on this forum. If any of "my" posts are wrong or appear to be total b*ll*cks they are the ones generated by the AI. If correct they were probably mine. I apologise for any mistakes made by my AI - I'm sure it will improve with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim_L Posted July 17, 2020 Author Share Posted July 17, 2020 OK, missed that one. Case obviously solved. ------ Windows 10 | i5-8500 CPU | Intel UHD 630 Graphics | 32 GB RAM | Latest Retail and Beta versions of complete Affinity range installed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts