Need an easier way to cut off excess curves

[Rachel75]

I feel like there is probably an easier way to trim off the parts of the vector images that overlap the watch band. I need the images to be flush with the edge of the watch band. Previously I would add nodes to the images where they meet the edge of the watch band, then I break the curve and delete the excess, and then line all the nodes up with the edge of the watch band perfectly, one by one. Needless to say, It takes forever and I feel like there is most likely a better and quicker way. If there isn't, then at least I will feel better and won't feel like I'm wasting time.

[Alfred]

Assuming that the watch band is a raster image, trace around it with the Pen Tool to create a closed vector shape for each half. Once you’ve done that, you can simply clip the decorative shapes to the watch band shapes so that any overspill becomes hidden.

[Guest]

Do you need the vector geometry to be cut exactly to the size of the band? If not, there is an easy way to accomplish this in Affinity Designer. If the band is transparent (assuming it's an image or pixel layer with alpha transparency) you could place the vector drawings 'inside' the band layer (via the layers panel) which would visually 'crop' them to the band. The vector images could still all be moved, resized, rotated, etc but would only be visible on the band itself.

The example below shows a rounded rectangle pixel layer (with drop shadow) and three vector stars 'clipped' the the pixel object. The entire geometry of the stars is still intact, but only those areas visible within the rectangle are visible. If you do need to trim the actual geometry with such intricate vector graphics you're probably better off with something like Adobe Illustrator which sadly has much better vector manipulation and clean-up tools.

[Rachel75]

@Alfred the watch band is a raster image (that I will delete once I have the shapes conformed to the shape of the band). I’ve never clipped anything before, so could you explain further on how to do that? Also, would clipping the shapes only hide the excess parts, or would it actually get rid of them? This is important because my purpose for this design is to engrave these shapes onto a watch band with a laser, so the excess vector parts that I do not want have to be completely eliminated, because even if you can’t see them, the laser will still engrave it as long as it still exists. 

[Rachel75]

@Bryan Rieger I do need to trim the actual geometry because this design will be used to engrave these shapes onto a watch band with a laser, and the laser will still engrave the hidden vector shapes even though they cannot be seen. As long as they still exist, it will be engraved. The pixel layer will be deleted once I get these shapes conformed to the shape of the watch band. The pixel watch band layer’s only purpose is to help me conform the vector shapes to the correct shape of the watch band. I was really hoping there was an easier way 😭 thank you for answering my question!

[DM1]

11 minutes ago, Rachel75 said:

I’ve never clipped anything before, so could you explain further on how to do that?

 

[Rachel75]

@DM1 thank you! This is exactly what I needed 

[Alfred]

6 hours ago, Rachel75 said:

I’ve never clipped anything before, so could you explain further on how to do that?

I see that @DM1 has kindly provided an excellent explanation.

6 hours ago, Rachel75 said:

Also, would clipping the shapes only hide the excess parts, or would it actually get rid of them?

As you can now see for yourself, the excess is merely hidden. You might think that the Boolean ‘Intersect’ command would produce the desired result, but it closes all open curves (and it would mess up any self-intersecting shapes).

[Rachel75]

@Alfredyes now I see that it only hides them. At first I got really excited and thought it was going to be just that simple. Thank you for your help, I appreciate it!

 

 

[Rachel75]

@Alfred do you happen to know if the result I’m looking for will be in-the-works for AD? I tried searching to see if it is something they will offer at some point, but I can’t find anything, or I just don’t know the correct terminology to search it properly. I really like AD and would hate to be forced to switch to Illustrator.

[Alfred]

What we’re waiting for is a Knife Tool. It was on the published roadmap for version 1.x of Affinity Designer, but that roadmap was hidden from public view some time ago. (Having said that, there’s no guarantee that such a tool will allow us to slice through a closed shape and leave the resultant shapes unclosed, which is what’s required here.)

[Rachel75]

@AlfredI understand. What if I rasterized it, would that work?

[Alfred]

From your description, the laser (not unexpectedly!) needs a vector path to follow, so rasterizing wouldn’t help here.

[Rachel75]

@Alfred it can laser raster images (I wasn’t thinking of this at first because I avoid raster images when engraving designs like this), the only problem with it is as I scale the image I’ll loose quality, but at this point I’m willing to try it to see how it will come out, that is only if the excess parts of the shapes will be even with the watch band of course.

[Alfred]

You obviously want to avoid scaling after rasterization but if you adjust the sizes of the vector objects beforehand and then ‘Rasterize & Trim’ you might get a usable result.

[Rachel75]

@Alfredok I’m going to measure the watch band, get it to the correct size, and then give it a try. I hope this doesn’t sound too stupid, but if I make the vector version bigger than what’s needed to engrave with the laser, then once I rasterize it and upload it to the laser, I will only have to scale the image down, therefore I shouldn’t loose quality as long as I’m only scaling down, correct? Forgive my ignorance, I would just rather ask than going through all the trouble of finding out through trial and error, and making the vector image a good bit larger rather than the exact size would be easier and more useful for me.

[Alfred]

You might lose a bit of quality depending on the resampling method (because pixels need to be discarded when scaling down a raster image) but bilinear or bicubic resampling generally gives good results when downsizing.

[Rachel75]

@Alfred oh ok, that’s very good to know. Thank you so much, all of the information you shared has been very helpful.