No smooth contour.

[JIPJIP]

1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:

The only difference which might exists is coming from fonts, which might share the same name, but could be slightly different depending on OS - they are delivered by OS or third party, not by Affinity 

Or by screens with more or less slightly different response curve which don't show the same way antialiasing blending.

I don't know if it is still the case, but mac did not use the standard gamma values.

Valid test for checking this point should be to look at the same image side by side on mac and on PC.

[NotMyFault]

8 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Half of my point!

As i have an iMac, a Windows PC and a 34“ ultra wide dual input display, i have done this. It is some effort because i must fall back from calibrated mode to a default color profiles. If required i can use my digital camera and macro lens to zoom to 3 individual sub-pixels (RGB pattern of display) and enlarge it.

The difference in UI rendering is strong. But a don’t expect to spot any difference of image data wrt to AA when using RGB/16.

RGB/8 has some limits caused by banding (not relevant to AA).

[Designer1]

2 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

As i have an iMac, a Windows PC and a 34“ ultra wide dual input display, i have done this. It is some effort because i must fall back from calibrated mode to a default color profiles. If required i can use my digital camera and macro lens to zoom to 3 individual sub-pixels (RGB pattern of display) and enlarge it.

The difference in UI rendering is strong. But a don’t expect to spot any difference of image data wrt to AA when using RGB/16.

RGB/8 has some limits caused by banding (not relevant to AA).

I understand that you see this from the scientific side as a computer scientist. However, the export results are not satisfactory, you just see it with your eyes. The straight shapes are exported optimally, there is a problem with the round shapes. I cannot tell you why this is so. CorelDraw delivers better results that are always of the same perfect quality.

As I understand you, the quality is better with the RGB/16 setting. Is that right? I will try it out.

[User_783649]

For anyone who could be interested in testing this further I prepared an .afpackage file. Unzip the attachment, open it and export to PNG. Post your result here and mention the Mac/Win and version of the OS. Please, remember that it is always better to open the images in a separate tab in 100% size to spot any subtle details.

The test file includes four text samples set in Arial, 390pt size (I used the version that comes with macOS Catalina 10.15.7 and included it in the package to avoid any kind of incosistency between different font versions and OS platforms – thank you for this suggestion @NotMyFault) and Blend Gamma values set as 1.0 1.45 2.2 and 3.0 for these four layers.

As I already mentioned in previous topic, I tend to believe there are slight differences in how Blend Gamma is involved in rasterization process. So my theory is that it has the most observable visual effect on how we feel about "smoothness" of vector shapes and type. Some other programs may have their own antialiasing curves or gamma interpretation.

But let's focus on Affinity first. And how it renders things on different platforms. There are might be some differences in calling OS-specific functions and/or system libraries outside of the shared product codebase parts. So that probably might explain why @Designer1 is seeing more harsh results on his machine while it appears to be more clean and polished on Macs.

Here's my result on macOS Catalina 10.15.7 and Affinity 1.10.4:

Spoiler

And just to compare, same Arial, 390pt in Photoshop.

Blend Gamma 1.0:

Spoiler

Blend Gamma 1.45:

Spoiler

Blend Gamma 2.2:

Spoiler

Blend Gamma 3.0:

Spoiler

 

affinity-rendering-quality.zip

[Designer1]

[Designer1]

8 minutes ago, Alex M said:

For anyone who could be interested in testing this further I prepared an .afpackage file. Unzip the attachment, open it and export to PNG. Post your result here and mention the Mac/Win and version of the OS. Please, remember that it is always better to open the images in a separate tab in 100% size to spot any subtle details.

The test file includes four text samples set in Arial, 390pt size (I used the version that comes with macOS Catalina 10.15.7 and included it in the package to avoid any kind of incosistency between different font versions and OS platforms – thank you for this suggestion @NotMyFault) and Blend Gamma values set as 1.0 1.45 2.2 and 3.0 for these four layers.

As I already mentioned in previous topic, I tend to believe there are slight differences in how Blend Gamma is involved in rasterization process. So my theory is that it has the most observable visual effect on how we feel about "smoothness" of vector shapes and type. Some other programs may have their own antialiasing curves or gamma interpretation.

But let's focus on Affinity first. And how it renders things on different platforms. There are might be some differences in calling OS-specific functions and/or system libraries outside of the shared product codebase parts. So that probably might explain why @Designer1 is seeing more harsh results on his machine while it appears to be more clean and polished on Macs.

Here's my result on macOS Catalina 10.15.7 and Affinity 1.10.4:

  Reveal hidden contents

And just to compare, same Arial, 390pt in Photoshop.

Blend Gamma 1.0:

  Reveal hidden contents

Blend Gamma 1.45:

  Reveal hidden contents

Blend Gamma 2.2:

  Reveal hidden contents

Blend Gamma 3.0:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

affinity-rendering-quality.zip 1.4 MB · 5 downloads

done

[Designer1]

CorelDRAW exports PNG with 24bit. It can be found under Export. Affinity says RGB 8 bit and RGB 16 bit. Why actually?

Perhaps quality suffers as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-bit_color

Issues[edit]

Due to the nature of the 8-bit system, most images have different color maps. Since an 8-bit color display can't display two images with different color maps at the same time, it is usually impossible to display two different 8-bit images on the same such display at the same time. In practice, in order to avoid this problem, most images don't use the full range of 256 colors. Another problem comes when doing image processing: whenever two images with different color maps are added to each other, the resulting image has to have a new color map created, meaning another quantization operation has to occur, making the resulting image an imperfect version of the expected result.^[1]

[User_783649]

@Designer1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#Pixel_format

CorelDRAW shows you total bit depth of all three channels (R,G,B). Adding transparency will result in extra 8 bit being added in case 8bit per channel or extra 16bit in case of 16bit per channel mode. So it will result in either 24bit or 32bit depth depending on transparency being turned on or off.

I'm not sure if CorelDRAW can export 16bit per channel PNGs.

Affinity, I believe, simply shows you per channel values instead of total bit depth. So by choosing RGB 8 bit you'll get either 24bit or 32bit depth depending on transparency being turned on or off. And in case of RGB 16bit you'll get either 48bit or 64bit depth.

[NotMyFault]

6 hours ago, Designer1 said:

CorelDRAW exports PNG with 24bit. It can be found under Export. Affinity says RGB 8 bit and RGB 16 bit. Why actually?

Perhaps quality suffers as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-bit_color

Issues[edit]

Due to the nature of the 8-bit system, most images have different color maps. Since an 8-bit color display can't display two images with different color maps at the same time, it is usually impossible to display two different 8-bit images on the same such display at the same time. In practice, in order to avoid this problem, most images don't use the full range of 256 colors. Another problem comes when doing image processing: whenever two images with different color maps are added to each other, the resulting image has to have a new color map created, meaning another quantization operation has to occur, making the resulting image an imperfect version of the expected result.^[1]

The wikipedia article you reference uses 8-bit for "indexed 256 color" formats like gif.

Affinity counts the color depth per color channel, and normally does not support indexed formats at all (rare exceptions excluded, not relevant in the context of the topic from this thread).

 

[Designer1]

23 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

The wikipedia article you reference uses 8-bit for "indexed 256 color" formats like gif.

Affinity counts the color depth per color channel, and normally does not support indexed formats at all (rare exceptions excluded, not relevant in the context of the topic from this thread).

 

The question is, can one improve the export quality of PNG or not? In my opinion, Adobe gives better results when exporting PNG and JPG. If Affinity would do the same high quality, that would be great.

[NotMyFault]

2 hours ago, Designer1 said:

The question is, can one improve the export quality of PNG or not? In my opinion, Adobe gives better results when exporting PNG and JPG. If Affinity would do the same high quality, that would be great.

You already got an official response from DWright that Affinity rate the current status as by-design and there is no intention to change anything.

During the later discussion we found out that your perspective is more on the creative (subjective) side, and less on the technical (objective) side. This makes it very difficult for Affinity (and me, a regular user) to (technically) reproduce the issue you observe. There is a minimal difference, which you rate as "bad quality", and others, including Affinity, rate as "not quality relevant". 

It is important to understand that Affinity Apps are no 100% clone of Adobe Apps for 1/10th of the cost. If you absolutely depend on getting 100% identical results do what Adobe apps deliver, you need to continue using Adobe apps. If you can live with results that 100% match in most cases, and 99,9% match in almost all cases, you will be happy to switch to Affinity.

Affinity gives users generous chance to test the Apps for free for 10 to 90 days (offer varying over time and depending on customer group), and in addition a refund if not happy offering. You can't purchase Affinity Apps for 10-55 € (depending on OS and special offers) and insist on they must deliver 100% identical results like Adobe Apps costing you 240€ per year. It should be clear that this cannot work out.

And completely independent form this, I personally see no "quality difference". It is a barely noticable difference when pixel peeping at >>100% zoom level, and you may prefer what Adobe delivers which is absolutely ok. I don't see a quality difference. The difference between the font rendering examples (all by Adobe) provided by @Alex M are far stronger than the difference between Adobe and Affinity. 

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Designer1 said:

The question is, can one improve the export quality of PNG or not?

It might be easier to get a definitive answer for this if you could explain more about what specifically you mean by "quality" in the context of a bitmap format like PNG.

[Designer1]

9 minutes ago, R C-R said:

It might be easier to get a definitive answer for this if you could explain more about what specifically you mean by "quality" in the context of a bitmap format like PNG.

Smooth contours in exported vector graphics to PNG and JPG. Perfect Antialiasing. No somewhat pixelated contours.

[Designer1]

34 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

You already got an official response from DWright that Affinity rate the current status as by-design and there is no intention to change anything.

During the later discussion we found out that your perspective is more on the creative (subjective) side, and less on the technical (objective) side. This makes it very difficult for Affinity (and me, a regular user) to (technically) reproduce the issue you observe. There is a minimal difference, which you rate as "bad quality", and others, including Affinity, rate as "not quality relevant". 

It is important to understand that Affinity Apps are no 100% clone of Adobe Apps for 1/10th of the cost. If you absolutely depend on getting 100% identical results do what Adobe apps deliver, you need to continue using Adobe apps. If you can live with results that 100% match in most cases, and 99,9% match in almost all cases, you will be happy to switch to Affinity.

Affinity gives users generous chance to test the Apps for free for 10 to 90 days (offer varying over time and depending on customer group), and in addition a refund if not happy offering. You can't purchase Affinity Apps for 10-55 € (depending on OS and special offers) and insist on they must deliver 100% identical results like Adobe Apps costing you 240€ per year. It should be clear that this cannot work out.

And completely independent form this, I personally see no "quality difference". It is a barely noticable difference when pixel peeping at >>100% zoom level, and you may prefer what Adobe delivers which is absolutely ok. I don't see a quality difference. The difference between the font rendering examples (all by Adobe) provided by @Alex M are far stronger than the difference between Adobe and Affinity. 

I bought Affinity Designer, Photo and Publisher.

[R C-R]

Just now, Designer1 said:

Smooth contours in exported vector graphics to PNG and JPG. Perfect antialssing. No somewhat pixelated contours.

PNG is a bitmap format, meaning it is inherently pixelated. There is no way around that -- you can either get smoothed but antialiased edges or turn off antialiasing & get rough stair-stepped edges. Different apps may use different methods of antialiasing which may result in slightly different pixel colors where edges are antialiased but none of them can perfectly duplicate the smooth contours of vector graphics. That is impossible.

[Designer1]

4 minutes ago, R C-R said:

PNG is a bitmap format, meaning it is inherently pixelated. There is no way around that -- you can either get smoothed but antialiased edges or turn off antialiasing & get rough stair-stepped edges. Different apps may use different methods of antialiasing which may result in slightly different pixel colors where edges are antialiased but none of them can perfectly duplicate the smooth contours of vector graphics. That is impossible.

How can I set the best possible antialssing? Smoothest possible contours?

[walt.farrell]

3 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

How can I set the best possible antialssing? Smoothest possible contours?

What DPI is your document?

Have you tried increasing it?

 

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Designer1 said:

How can I set the best possible antialssing? Smoothest possible contours?

Antialiasing can never be smoother than the pixel resolution of the PNG, just maybe a little different if you use different apps to create the PNG. So if you want smoother contours that more closely resemble resolution-independent vector objects, your only alternative is to increase the pixel resolution (the pixel dimensions) of your file. This will unavoidably increase file size.

In short, there is no way around this. It is a limitation of the PNG format itself.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, walt.farrell said:

What DPI is your document?

Have you tried increasing it?

How can changing the DPI make antialiasing smoother?

[walt.farrell]

31 minutes ago, R C-R said:

How can changing the DPI make antialiasing smoother?

For @Designer1 it is not simply about the antialiasing. It is about producing something, and then zooming way in (for example, to prepare a presentation that will be enlarged when it is projected, I think).

If you have a 72 DPI PNG file, and an object displayed so it is 1" across, there are only 72 pixels in that inch, and antialiasing around its contour will be relatively coarse.

If your PNG file is 1200 DPI, and the object is still displayed so it is 1" across, there are many more pixels and the apparent antialiasing should be smoother.

That should also give you more freedom to zoom in beyond 100%, before you get to a point where the antialiasing becomes objectionable.

For example, here are two circles, both created at a size of 1". The left one is from a 72 DPI document, the right one is from an 1200 DPI document, and then zoomed in until each is approximately 3" on the screen:

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

If you have a 72 DPI PNG file, and an object displayed so it is 1" across, there are only 72 pixels in that inch, and antialiasing around its contour will be relatively coarse.

As I understand it, the document is an Affinity format file with vector content, & the OP is asking how to export it to PNG while preserving as much as is possible the smoothness of contours (edges) in the export.

IOW, the OP is not starting with a PNG, instead with an an Affinity format file, so I do not see how setting DPI for the export would increase its pixel resolution.

[Designer1]

13 minutes ago, R C-R said:

As I understand it, the document is an Affinity format file with vector content, & the OP is asking how to export it to PNG while preserving as much as is possible the smoothness of contours (edges) in the export.

IOW, the OP is not starting with a PNG, instead with an an Affinity format file, so I do not see how setting DPI for the export would increase its pixel resolution.

I use the default setting of 300 dpi.

[walt.farrell]

15 minutes ago, R C-R said:

IOW, the OP is not starting with a PNG, instead with an an Affinity format file, so I do not see how setting DPI for the export would increase its pixel resolution.

I started with a .afdesign file at 72 for the picture on the left, and exported to PNG. I started with a .afdesign file at 1200 DPI, and exported to PNG, for the picture on the right.

Then viewed both with equal zoom so the 1" circles were approximately 3" in the viewer.

[walt.farrell]

3 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

I use the default setting of 300 dpi.

So try 1200, for example.

[Designer1]

7 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

So try 1200, for example.

That would not be a problem. So vector graphic 1200 dpi. However, then export a PNG in the size 2000 px x 4000 px. Do you think that resolution of 1200 dpi. will help? I'll try it out.