Photo - resetting scale and transform of pixel layers?

[dock]

One of the things I like about Affinity Photo is that different layers can have different PPI resolutions.
Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to see the resolution, or access the raw image data per layer.

Is it possible to reset the transform on a layer? I don't mean 'Rasterizing', which is a destructive conversion to a different format.

I would also love to be able to export layers at their native resolution.

 

Here's an example of a low resolution skewed layer. I would love to be able to access these pixels and export the unskewed version. Any suggestions?

 

[Old Bruce]

4 hours ago, dock said:

Is it possible to reset the transform on a layer? I don't mean 'Rasterizing', which is a destructive conversion to a different format.

 

Use the Move Tool and select that layer and the Transform Panel will have the Rotation and Shear values which you can set to 0 (zero) to reset. Or if you mean you want the sheared pixel layer to have a bounding box which is 'squared up' you can group that layer on its lonesome and the Group layer will be 'squared up'

4 hours ago, dock said:

Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to see the resolution, or access the raw image data per layer.

 

If you use the Move tool and select the image layer then you can see in the context toolbar what the placed size is (sadly this does not work for Document layers, a placed .afphoto file).

[dock]

Thank you @Old Bruce!!
I was able to find the shear and rotation values in the Transform panel, but I can't find the Context Toolbar values

[Hadriscus]

I may be wrong but I think this only applies to image layers, from which AP can deduce the ratio between original and scaled. For pixel layers, there is no such ratio, because there is no "original" to compare with.

[Old Bruce]

I misunderstood, I thought you had imported some images.

We have the document's resolution and you have drawn some lines which you then altered using shear and rotate (and possibly scaled them up too). Are you wanting them to be the original width which you drew them at? I doubt that is possible with Pixels being changed. You would have been better served by using the pen tool so as to keep them as vectors. All I can suggest is that you make a new pixel layer and trace over them with the brush set to the smaller width.

[dock]

@Old BruceThanks for trying to help. Looks like scaled pixel layers are pretty janky. Shame.


The lines were drawn on a skewed layer as a test. I want to be able to create pixel layers in Affinity Photo and scale them non-destructively to preserve the resolution.  Trying to scale it down manually to what it was originally doesn't appear to work either, even when the resolution is known.  Pretty frustrating.

So in order to make non-destructive lower resolution layers I need to create a separate document for each one, and load/edit each document separately? yikes.
 

[Old Bruce]

I honestly don't know what you are trying to achieve. Do you want to export the Skewed Drawing? The Skewed Drawing after it is reset to 0 (zero)? The Skewed Drawing at a different resolution (meaning DPI)? What do you mean by 'Native Resolution', is it the document's resolution or is it the original size of the manipulated pixel layer?

[R C-R]

15 hours ago, dock said:

I want to be able to create pixel layers in Affinity Photo and scale them non-destructively to preserve the resolution.

The resolution of pixel layers is the same as the resolution of the document you create them in. If you scale up or down the size of those layers it is unavoidably a destructive process (other than by using the History panel or possibly by using the Undo Brush Tool with saved snapshots or such) because scaling their size must remap the original pixel information to conform to the document resolution.

[lepr]

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

The resolution of pixel layers is the same as the resolution of the document you create them in. If you scale up or down the size of those layers it is unavoidably a destructive process (other than by using the History panel or possibly by using the Undo Brush Tool with saved snapshots or such) because scaling their size must remap the original pixel information to conform to the document resolution.

Affinity apps perform non-destructive transforms of Pixel objects. That has been explained numerous times over the years.

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, anon2 said:

Affinity apps perform non-destructive transforms of Pixel objects.

But are they not destructive in the sense that there is no way to return them to the original size once rescaled?

[lepr]

R C-R, this stuff is so simple to test for yourself. Create a Pixel object by opening some PNG file. Scale the Pixel object to 1% of its original size. Now scale it to 10000% of its current size. You will see that the Pixel object has been restored to original size with no loss of detail.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, anon2 said:

R C-R, this stuff is so simple to test for yourself. Create a Pixel object by opening some PNG file. Scale the Pixel object to 1% of its original size. Now scale it to 10000% of its current size. You will see that the Pixel object has been restored to original size with no loss of detail.

That isn't the point, which is that the user has to remember how much it was scaled from its original size for that to work because the apps do not.

[lepr]

42 minutes ago, R C-R said:

That isn't the point, which is that the user has to remember how much it was scaled from its original size for that to work because the apps do not.

The point which I was addressing was that you were indisputably wrong when you stated that scaling a Pixel object is a destructive operation.

The reliability of a user's memory does not determine the destructiveness of the scaling. As an analogy, if you put $1000 in a safe and forget the combination, the $1000 is not destroyed, although accessing it may be somewhat difficult.

 

[R C-R]

I think my comments were entirely correct within the context of the topic (resetting the scale) but if you see it differently, so be it.

[lepr]

45 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I think my comments were entirely correct within the context of the topic (resetting the scale) but if you see it differently, so be it.

I prefer facts. You are entitled to your warped opinion, of course.

 

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, anon2 said:

I prefer facts. You are entitled to your warped opinion, of course.

Just as you are entitled to your warped interpretation of the context of this topic.  

[lepr]

14 hours ago, R C-R said:

Just as you are entitled to your warped interpretation of the context of this topic.  

I didn't misinterpret the context. I merely pointed out a fallacy in a message posted by you.

[R C-R]

46 minutes ago, anon2 said:

I didn't misinterpret the context. I merely pointed out a fallacy in a message posted by you.

The fallacy is yours. Unlike with an image layer, the fact is resizing a pixel layer is destructive because all information about its original size & pixel resolution is destroyed, unless of course (as I mentioned) the document History is saved with the document, or possibly if a snapshot was created of its original state, neither of which is a default.

If you believe that is factually inaccurate then it should be very easy for you to show this. Simply download this resized.afphoto file & resize its one pixel layer to its original dimensions & tell us what they are.

[lepr]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The fallacy is yours. Unlike with an image layer, the fact is resizing a pixel layer is destructive because all information about its original size & pixel resolution is destroyed, unless of course (as I mentioned) the document History is saved with the document, or possibly if a snapshot was created of its original state, neither of which is a default.

 

Wrong again. Scaling a Pixel object is non-destructive because the pixels of the object remain unchanged. The object's transformation matrix is changed and so its displayed representation changes, but it can be restored to its original size and appearance by resetting the transformation matrix. I tried to tell you before, a user being unable to access something does not imply that the thing has been destroyed.

21 minutes ago, R C-R said:

If you believe that is factually inaccurate then it should be very easy for you to show this. Simply download this resized.afphoto file & resize its one pixel layer to its original dimensions & tell us what they are.

If you did nothing that re-rasterised the Pixel object, then it was 423 x 331 pixels.

 

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, anon2 said:

If you did nothing that re-rasterised the Pixel object, then it was 423 x 331 pixels.

Nope.

[lepr]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Nope.

So tell us what its original size was and every operation that was performed on it.

[R C-R]

Just now, anon2 said:

So tell us what its original size was and every operation that was performed on it.

The original size was 423 x 337 px. I simply resized it disproportionally in the x & y directions.

[lepr]

6 minutes ago, R C-R said:

The original size was 423 x 337 px. I simply resized it disproportionally in the x & y directions.

I'm certain that you misread a 1 as a 7, and the original width was 331 and not 337. 

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, anon2 said:

I'm quite sure you misread a 1 as a 7, and the original width was 331 and not 337. 

I copied the original width & height from the Transform panel into a TextEdit document, then copied & pasted those values into my reply.

[lepr]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

I copied the original width & height from the Transform panel into a TextEdit document, then copied & pasted those values into my reply.

That is BS or your computer mysteriously changed a 1 to a 7 while transferring text from one place to another.