Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can see it, but just barely, and I don't think I would have caught it unless someone pointed it out.

That said, I'm not 100% convinced this is anti-aliasing at fault.

It might be some raggedness in how the curvature of the underlying shape is being processed.  Hard to be sure.

Given that these are also being reviewed at 300% of their intended size, it could also be an artifact of the scaling algorithm in play rather than of the data actually exported.  There could be tiny but equally correct differences in the data that the Affinity products are putting out which the algorithm might be misinterpreting if it had been optimized for the output of other products.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It would help if you showed us examples that were the same size. However, I copied a screenshot of both from the forum, and resized the one from Coreldraw to be the same size as the other, then r

I can see it, but just barely, and I don't think I would have caught it unless someone pointed it out. That said, I'm not 100% convinced this is anti-aliasing at fault. It might be some ragg

It seemed possible from your post that you thought that working in RGB/32 was necessary to get PNG-24. I was pointing out that RGB/8 is sufficient. Given that it needs to come down to 8-bits per

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Alfred said:

You haven’t said which is which. I’m guessing that the first one is from AD and the second one is CD

You don't have to guess. You can look at the filenames of the uploaded images (assuming they were named accurately).

-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 20H2 (19042.685),
   Desktop: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970
   Laptop (2021-04-06):  32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz
, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
Affinity Photo 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1024 Beta

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

You don't have to guess. You can look at the filenames of the uploaded images (assuming they were named accurately).

Thanks, Walt. The file names ‘affinity.png’ and ‘corel.png’ are not readily accessible in the browser on my iPad; I have to jump through hoops to discover them.

Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher for Windows 1.9.1 • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.9.1 • Designer for iPad 1.9.1 • iPadOS 14.4.2 (iPad Air 2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like fde, I can see the issue, but as they write, it could be due to other issues.

I think it would be best to make the text the same size in both applications and only export the selection from each so the are the same size at 100% view.

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

You’re quite correct. Looking at them again now, I can see that the lower left-hand corner of the ‘a’ is a little bit ragged, with a very slight hint of the same problem on the bowl of the ‘b’, but I don’t think it would have been easily perceived if we only had the ‘b’ and the ‘c’ to inspect.

I hope the Affinity team can improve the smoothing. Especially when exporting graphics as PNG and JPG that have fine details, the difference to CorelDraw and Illustrator is noticeable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fde101 said:

I can see it, but just barely, and I don't think I would have caught it unless someone pointed it out.

That said, I'm not 100% convinced this is anti-aliasing at fault.

It might be some raggedness in how the curvature of the underlying shape is being processed.  Hard to be sure.

Given that these are also being reviewed at 300% of their intended size, it could also be an artifact of the scaling algorithm in play rather than of the data actually exported.  There could be tiny but equally correct differences in the data that the Affinity products are putting out which the algorithm might be misinterpreting if it had been optimized for the output of other products.

Incidentally, the same problem with smoothing exists in Affinity Publisher. I hope the Affinity team can improve the smoothing as soon as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

Incidentally, the same problem with smoothing exists in Affinity Publisher. I hope the Affinity team can improve the smoothing as soon as possible.

First off, it stands to reason that Publisher would do the same as Designer as all three of the apps share the same underlying engine.

 

That said, I don't really think there is a problem here.  Can you actually see it at 100%?

A raster image is not meant to be scaled smoothly, it is meant to be created at the desired resolution in the first place.  If you want something three times larger, then export it at three times the resolution - don't export a smaller one expecting to scale it.

By their very nature, raster images are not going to scale smoothly.  That is just how it is.

 

If there is room for improvement in the way that the Affinity products are exporting to raster formats, then by all means, they should do so - but there is no evidence of that whatsoever that can be presented by using scaled-up versions of the raster images when the scaling is trying to smooth out the images rather than making clear the individual pixels so that they can be examined at a technical level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one seeing a difference in Height in the letters abc The Corel PNG being larger.

MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.6

Affinity Designer 1.9.2 | Affinity Photo 1.9.2 | Affinity Publisher 1.9.2 | Beta versions as they appear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fde101 said:

First off, it stands to reason that Publisher would do the same as Designer as all three of the apps share the same underlying engine.

 

That said, I don't really think there is a problem here.  Can you actually see it at 100%?

A raster image is not meant to be scaled smoothly, it is meant to be created at the desired resolution in the first place.  If you want something three times larger, then export it at three times the resolution - don't export a smaller one expecting to scale it.

By their very nature, raster images are not going to scale smoothly.  That is just how it is.

 

If there is room for improvement in the way that the Affinity products are exporting to raster formats, then by all means, they should do so - but there is no evidence of that whatsoever that can be presented by using scaled-up versions of the raster images when the scaling is trying to smooth out the images rather than making clear the individual pixels so that they can be examined at a technical level.

Yes, I can see very well at 100% that the smoothing could be better. It is important that the PNG is smooth and sharp. Whether this can be achieved by smoothing or by other technical improvements can only be answered by the Affinity team.

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

Am I the only one seeing a difference in Height in the letters abc The Corel PNG being larger.

No.

2 hours ago, Designer1 said:

improve the smoothing

When exporting to any bitmap format, you must always make sure to turn on pixel preview and align as many right angle edges to full pixels as only possible before you click the Export button.
If you don't, you will always have "problem with smoothing", no matter which app you use.

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

Am I the only one seeing a difference in Height in the letters abc The Corel PNG being larger.

The two from this post are the same height, for me. I just saved them (click on an image, then right-click and Save Image As) both, opened them in a New Stack, and put horizontal guides at the top and bottom. Both fit the Guides perfectly.

-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 20H2 (19042.685),
   Desktop: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970
   Laptop (2021-04-06):  32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz
, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
Affinity Photo 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1024 Beta

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Possibly it is because Corel PNG has 24 bit?

Yes, greater bit depth will allow for a finer color gamut and thus smoother color transitions when creating antialiasing.
So why not try setting an ADesigner document to 32 bit, and then exporting as PNG 24 bit?

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.8.5.703.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 20H2, Build 19042.610.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

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

So why not try setting an ADesigner document to 32 bit, and then exporting as PNG 24 bit?

An RGB/8 document gives you a PNG-24 export if document transparency is off, with the PNG export preset.

-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 20H2 (19042.685),
   Desktop: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970
   Laptop (2021-04-06):  32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz
, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
Affinity Photo 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1024 Beta

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

An RGB/8 document gives you a PNG-24 export if document transparency is off, with the PNG export preset.

Thanks for the information, which no one asked.
How does this relate to creating the best possible conditions for creating the finest anti-aliasing transition, to verify/confirm that the anti-aliasing problem is/is'nt in Affinity generation and not in the document format used?

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.8.5.703.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 20H2, Build 19042.610.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

An RGB/8 document gives you a PNG-24 export

Exactly: "RGB/8" = 3×8 = 24

Also, keep in mind that PNG export from ADe directly depends on File > Document Setup > Dimensions > DPI. If you need higher resolution, that's where you must go first. Unless you're already working in pixel units.

25 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

How does this relate to creating the best possible conditions for creating the finest anti-aliasing transition,

As far as I can tell, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever:

ade8_star8.pngade16_star16.png

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

Thanks for the information, which no one asked.
How does this relate to creating the best possible conditions for creating the finest anti-aliasing transition, to verify/confirm that the anti-aliasing problem is/is'nt in Affinity generation and not in the document format used?

It seemed possible from your post that you thought that working in RGB/32 was necessary to get PNG-24.

I was pointing out that RGB/8 is sufficient. Given that it needs to come down to 8-bits per channel to get PNG-24, I don't see how going higher than 8-bits per channel will give you better anti-aliasing. The extra data has to be thrown away at some point.

-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 20H2 (19042.685),
   Desktop: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970
   Laptop (2021-04-06):  32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz
, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU
Affinity Photo 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1005 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.9.2.1035 and 1.9.2.1024 Beta

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, loukash said:

Exactly: "RGB/8" = 3×8 = 24

Also, keep in mind that PNG export from ADe directly depends on File > Document Setup > Dimensions > DPI. If you need higher resolution, that's where you must go first. Unless you're already working in pixel units.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever:

ade8_star8.pngade16_star16.png

The problem with smoothing is mainly with curves and not with straight lines and rectangular shapes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

The extra data has to be thrown away at some point.

Yes, but only during export, when the raster image is transformed/recalculated/reduced according to the format of the output file and its bit depth.

Personally, I assume that when exporting vector data and texts, everything is first rasterized according to the document parameters (its bit depth, DPI and ICC profiles), and only then individual output files are generated from this (master) rasterized output (eg when you have several different slices, or if you have several different file formats and different bit depths and different resolutions from the same slice), which only now respect, and therefore recalculate the output according to the relevant parameters of each file. Thus, I would expect and assume, that rasterization and thus antialiasing "can" change according to the format of the document and its bit depth, which is directly related to the possibilities of antialiasing and the fineness of its transitions. If Affinity doesn't do it, and rasterizes/antialiases all the time, regardless of the parameters of the document, it's quite a shame.

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.8.5.703.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 20H2, Build 19042.610.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Designer1 said:

The problem with smoothing is mainly with curves and not with straight lines and rectangular shapes.

  1. Designer RGB/8, PNG 24:
    ade8png8.png.7e9ec83cbc223eaa7cca7e09d515dd4c.png
     
  2. Designer RGB/32, PNG 48:
    ade32png16.png.d25ec73ab341f3ca510c6e8102d66c95.png
     
  3. Illustrator CS5, 8-bit, PNG 24:
    ai8png8.png.96a6344ec9dd6beb7a55f0ed7e465ae9.png

 

Can't see any difference. Except that

^ Strike that, there is a minor difference between Designer & Illustrator. Illustrator is slightly smoother, but I really had to look hard.

Also, Adobe's ancient "Save For Web" module is apparently still the most file-size-efficient that there is.

Here's all data that GraphicConverter can fetch from each PNG:

  1. General: Colors: True Color (ARGB, 24 Bit Color, 8 Bit Alpha, 16.7 Million Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:40
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 10:59:59
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 47.70 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 10:59:59
    General: Memory Usage: 1.92 MB
    General: Name: ade8png8.png
    General: Name without Extension: ade8png8
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,6 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

  2. General: Colors: Deep Color (RGBA, 48 Bit Color, 16 Bit Alpha, 281 Trillion Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:48
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 11:00:17
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 79.32 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 11:00:17
    General: Memory Usage: 3.84 MB
    General: Name: ade32png16.png
    General: Name without Extension: ade32png16
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,6 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

  3. General: Colors: True Color (ARGB, 24 Bit Color, 8 Bit Alpha, 16.7 Million Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:67
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 11:09:43
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 28.46 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 11:09:43
    General: Memory Usage: 1.92 MB
    General: Name: ai8png8.png
    General: Name without Extension: ai8png8
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,7 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

Edited by loukash
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Designer1 said:

The problem with smoothing is mainly with curves and not with straight lines and rectangular shapes.

... there can also be a difference between drawing texts/fonts (as the OP talks about all the time) and drawing curves and shapes.

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.8.5.703.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 20H2, Build 19042.610.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

there can also be a difference between drawing texts/fonts (as the OP talks about all the time) and drawing curves and shapes.

Yeah, fonts usually need a special handling. Adobe's Save For Web actually has an option for that:

ai_saveforweb_png_options.png.87dddb295f8f30198b3a585bf57ce2dc.png

But even then, with "pre-retina" logotype design for web, usually I had to convert text to paths first and then manually align each character to line up exactly to the pixel grid, to avoid anti-aliasing of right angle lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, loukash said:
  1. Designer RGB/8, PNG 24:
    ade8png8.png.7e9ec83cbc223eaa7cca7e09d515dd4c.png
     
  2. Designer RGB/32, PNG 48:
    ade32png16.png.d25ec73ab341f3ca510c6e8102d66c95.png
     
  3. Illustrator CS5, 8-bit, PNG 24:
    ai8png8.png.96a6344ec9dd6beb7a55f0ed7e465ae9.png

 

Can't see any difference. Except that

^ Strike that, there is a minor difference between Designer & Illustrator. Illustrator is slightly smoother, but I really had to look hard.

Also, Adobe's ancient "Save For Web" module is apparently still the most file-size-efficient that there is.

Here's all data that GraphicConverter can fetch from each PNG:

  1. General: Colors: True Color (ARGB, 24 Bit Color, 8 Bit Alpha, 16.7 Million Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:40
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 10:59:59
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 47.70 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 10:59:59
    General: Memory Usage: 1.92 MB
    General: Name: ade8png8.png
    General: Name without Extension: ade8png8
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,6 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

  2. General: Colors: Deep Color (RGBA, 48 Bit Color, 16 Bit Alpha, 281 Trillion Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:48
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 11:00:17
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 79.32 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 11:00:17
    General: Memory Usage: 3.84 MB
    General: Name: ade32png16.png
    General: Name without Extension: ade32png16
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,6 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

  3. General: Colors: True Color (ARGB, 24 Bit Color, 8 Bit Alpha, 16.7 Million Colors)
    General: Compression: 1:67
    General: File Creation Date: 06.03.2021, 11:09:43
    General: File Format: PNG
    General: File Length: 28.46 KB
    General: File Modification Date: 06.03.2021, 11:09:43
    General: Memory Usage: 1.92 MB
    General: Name: ai8png8.png
    General: Name without Extension: ai8png8
    General: Req. Time for Decompression: 0,0s
    General: Resolution: 72,0 × 72,0 ppi
    General: Size (current unit): 800 × 600 pixel
    General: Size (inch): 11,1 × 8,3 inch
    General: Size (mm): 282,2 × 211,7 mm
    General: Size (pixel): 800 × 600 pixel

Adobe Illustrator CS5 (version 15) - April 12, 2010. Is a very old program. You should compare exclusively with Adobe Illustrator CC from Creative Cloud. The new Adobe Illustrator CC is much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Designer1 said:

Adobe Illustrator CS5 (version 15) - April 12, 2010. Is a very old program.

Uh, that's what I meant by "ancient". And yet the export results are still better than Affinity's.

1 minute ago, Designer1 said:

You should compare exclusively with Adobe Illustrator CC from Creative Cloud.

That won't happen. Ever.  :P

2 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

The new Adobe Illustrator CC is much better.

More power to them. Meh.

I, for one, want Affinity to become "much better". Much like anyone else here, right?

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

Uh, that's what I meant by "ancient". And yet the export results are still better than Affinity's.

That won't happen. Ever.  :P

More power to them. Meh.

I, for one, want Affinity to become "much better". Much like anyone else here, right?

Yes, that's right. The Affinity Designer has potential. But the smoothing is not perfect. @

Sean P

I hope the Affinity staff read the forum and will review the smoothing thing and improve it.

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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.