Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Rasterizing a pixel layer that has a lock, takes off the lock


Recommended Posts

Yes, I know already that there is no need to rasterize a pixel layer.  The need often exists to rasterize an image layer.  However, in checking something else out I did rasterize a pixel layer, which was locked.  As a result, the lock then disappeared.  Hence my query, why would this happen?  by design - or is it something which should not happen?

Jafa - Just Another Fantastic Aucklander

(Jim)

Windows 11

Affinity Photo 2.4

Lightroom 6

Nik Collection and Topaz Denoise AI

Intel Core i7 9700K @ 3.60GHz    32 °C
Coffee Lake 14nm Technology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jaffa said:

Yes, I know already that there is no need to rasterize a pixel layer.

There is sometimes

But to hazard a guess of why the lock is removed...

I would guess that when you Rasterise a pixel layer you are actually replacing that layer with another one (the rasterised version) so the original layer with the Lock no longer exists

Similar to if you used the command Rasterise to Mask the new (replaced layer) would have no lock on it

 

But I can understand why some users would find the lock being removed, when rasterising a layer, a bit confusing

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

6 hours ago, carl123 said:

But I can understand why some users would find the lock being removed, when rasterising a layer, a bit confusing

I find it confusing that a locked layer can be rasterized.

Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 
Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear.

I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I find it confusing that a locked layer can be rasterized.

Why? (Or, given all the other things that locking does not prevent, why would you expect rasterizing to be prevented?)

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, walt.farrell said:

Why? (Or, given all the other things that locking does not prevent, why would you expect rasterizing to be prevented?)

I am confused by all the things I can do to a locked layer. The Affinity idea of locked is not a definition that is in any of my dictionaries.

Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 
Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear.

I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carl123 said:

I would guess that when you Rasterise a pixel layer you are actually replacing that layer with another one (the rasterised version) so the original layer with the Lock no longer exists

That does not seem reasonable from a user standpoint. After all, pixel layers are already raster layers, so the rasterize command doesn't actually need to do anything.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

After all, pixel layers are already raster layers, so the rasterize command doesn't actually need to do anything.

But sometimes it does need to do things, as Carl said.

For example, if the pixel layer is not properly aligned to the document's pixel grid. Or if the DPI of the pixel layer is different from the document DPI.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

But sometimes it does need to do things, as Carl said.

True, but when it does not (or even when it does) need to change anything does it really seem logical (or even helpful) from a user standpoint to also remove the lock?

Imagine for instance that I have locked a pixel layer so I won't accidentally grab & move it with the Move Tool. Later, I decide I want to rasterize it to set its DPI to that of the document. If I do that from the Layer menu & I do not have the Move tool active at taht time, I probably would not even notice the layer had been unlocked until i accidentally moved it with the Move tool.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, R C-R said:

True, but when it does not (or even when it does) need to change anything does it really seem logical (or even helpful) from a user standpoint to also remove the lock?

That's a different question.

You did not ask whether it made sense to remove the lock, in what I quoted. You commented that rasterization didn't need to do anything for a layer that is already a pixel layer.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

You commented that rasterization didn't need to do anything for a layer that is already a pixel layer.

Yes, I did not consider all the possibilities when rasterizing a pixel layer, but sometimes it does do nothing so at least in those cases there is no need to replace anything & thus no programatic reason to remove the lock.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2021 at 10:44 PM, R C-R said:

but sometimes it does do nothing

If you have a red rectangle shape and you click on the same red swatch the history panel will record a "set fill" command even though to us mere mortals it looks like nothing has changed and indeed nothing has changed as the colour is still the same red colour

From a programming point of view, it's probably quicker and more efficient to say...

a) Assign the colour the user just clicked on

rather than

b) First check the colour is not already the one the user just clicked on and only if it is different assign the new colour


I believe the Rasterise command is the same, it will just do it whether there will be an actual change to the layer or not.

 

Additional "proof" of the above last statement

Create a 30,000px by 30,000px document

Place any JPG in it and resize to fit the canvas

Rasterise that image and you will see the progress bar appear

Immediately rasterise the image again and you will see the same progress bar

Likewise, no matter how many times you rasterise that layer you always see the same progress bar, even though logically we know nothing is changing after we have rasterised the image the first time.

There are simply no checks to see if rasterising the layer will change the layer in any way - it just does what you tell it to do 

 

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

3 minutes ago, carl123 said:

From a programming point of view, it's probably quicker and more efficient to say...

From my point of view it is more efficient for the app to avoid using system resources unnecessarily. Among other reasons, why should I have to wait for a progress bar to complete when there is no change in the document once it does?

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

From my point of view it is more efficient for the app to avoid using system resources unnecessarily. Among other reasons, why should I have to wait for a progress bar to complete when there is no change in the document once it does?

Because the only other way would be for the software to first check that every command you give it will make a meaningful change to the document and only execute that command if it does. That would seem like a lot more overhead and use of system resources, let alone all the additional code needed to be added to every function in the software.

1) For most of us we would not reassign a red colour to a rectangle when we know it is already red - so why waste system resources checking that 

2) For most of us we would not rasterise a layer when we know nothing will happen - so why waste system resources checking that   

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

12 hours ago, carl123 said:

Because the only other way would be for the software to first check that every command you give it will make a meaningful change to the document and only execute that command if it does. That would seem like a lot more overhead and use of system resources, let alone all the additional code needed to be added to every function in the software.

I am not asking for every commend to be checked, but for example surely it would not take anything extra to check if the DPI of a Pixel layer is currently the same as that of the document (the pixel layer DPI is already shown in the context toolbar when that layer is selected with the Move Tool) & then if it is to check if it is pixel aligned before applying the rasterize command. All of the needed data is already calculated, so why not use it?

12 hours ago, carl123 said:

2) For most of us we would not rasterise a layer when we know nothing will happen - so why waste system resources checking that   

Minimal checking as above would use very few system resources. Besides, even for those of us that know nothing would happen it is still possible to activate the "Rasterize..." option by accident (particularly with a keyboard shortcut!), which for something like your 30K px layer means waiting for the progress bar to finish before we can do anything else with the app.

All 3 1.10.8, & all 3 V2.4.1 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.8; Affinity Designer 1.108; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
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

Terms of Use | 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.