No smooth contour.

[walt.farrell]

Just now, Alex M said:

It may look blurry if you're looking at the image preview in the forum's popup window.

Thanks. I forget that.

[walt.farrell]

12 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

So you think text quality is good, text is sharp and smooth? In your opinion, does it not need any improvement?

Looking at the image in a new tab (thanks, Alex), I am happy with the way the text looks, and I do not see a need for any improvement.

[Designer1]

18 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I said it seems blurry, and asked if your screenshot is with a 100% zoom.

The answer to that question is important.

Yes, with 100% zoom.

[Designer1]

16 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Looking at the image in a new tab (thanks, Alex), I am happy with the way the text looks, and I do not see a need for any improvement.

You do not have high standards.

[walt.farrell]

47 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

You do not have high standards.

Or, perhaps, yours are too high.

[Designer1]

32 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Or, perhaps, yours are too high.

My criteria are not too high. Currently Affinity Designer exports a quality of PNG that is ok for hobby designers, but not for professional design and advertising agencies. Only if you design a vector graphic in 600 - 1200 dpi and then rasterise, you get a really very good export quality of PNG and JPG.

Affinity Team probably works with professional designers, or they are employed by Serif (Europe) Ltd. These people should be the best ones to check the export quality.

[Old Bruce]

5 minutes ago, Designer1 said:

My criteria are not too high. Currently Affinity Designer exports a quality of PNG that is ok for hobby designers, but not for professional design and advertising agencies. Only if you design a vector graphic in 600 - 1200 dpi and then rasterise, you get a really very good export quality of PNG and JPG.

Are you saying that Adobe Illustrator and other applications give "good export quality" when designing at 300 dpi?

[Designer1]

3 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Are you saying that Adobe Illustrator and other applications give "good export quality" when designing at 300 dpi?

The export quality with Adobe and Corel is much better.

[JimmyJack]

On 3/18/2022 at 4:32 PM, Alex M said:

@JimmyJack My Friday’s bet will be is that first one is AD.

Thanks for playing!! You are the only one to venture an actual guess. I applaude you 👏.
I would think, if the difference is so outstanding, there would be many takers: "x is AD, x, x , x, x"
I'll let it run for another day or so in case others want to weight in. (I won't forget to reveal)

On 3/19/2022 at 3:48 AM, NotMyFault said:

There is a minor difference in gamma used for AA. The left shows slightly darker AA pixels.

Could be caused by by gamma, or the stroke could be minimal different in size.

Can you please give the exact data of the circle (diameter or height /width, position of center point .0 or .5, stroke width in px) ?

Actually, it would be helpful to start with the identical SVG file and see how Aph IS render the same file for export.

Yes, there is a very slight difference (good eye). For me to really see it I had to zoom in much farther (and my image above is already at 700%).
I also did an overlay of the two which reveals a tiny "halo" around the whole object. But the halo is complete around the edge so the OP's original complaint about just the 90º tangents isn't consistent.

The exact data really isn't important because it IS the same identical file used in both. It's a PDF, not an SVG, but that shouldn't matter. I can assure you though, that the circle image, inside diameter, outside diameter, size and placement is all absolutely pixel perfect. But this raises a good point.... in being pixel perfect perhaps I am coddling Affinity too much. I personally think it's absurd (if not impossible) to expect a creative person in a creative app to always be pixel perfect. Snapping overrides it, scaling destroys it. Text can never be pixel perfect. Affinity needs to be "smarter".

Next experiment coming. And that will be anything but pixel perfect!!

On 3/19/2022 at 10:55 AM, Designer1 said:

The best thing is to do a test yourself. Simply export the text or some words from affinity as PNG and from Illustrator or Corel and then compare the quality.

Good test, will do. Another head to head coming right up!

[JimmyJack]

Ohhhhh-Kay. Here we go.
Nothing about this is pixel perfect (except for original page size and final placement of images on the page for comparison)

Step right up!
(to me there is a clear difference)

[R C-R]

5 hours ago, Designer1 said:

Here is a text example with OpenSans 24 pt. As you can see, letterforms are not well smoothed. Especially with round shapes export quality is not good.

I still do not understand what specifically you think is not well smoothed in this PNG. I have to zoom in to at least 250% of actual size to begin to see the effects of antialiasing. At 100% it looks fine.

5 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Ohhhhh-Kay. Here we go.

Is this from zoomed in views or is everything at 100% of its actual size?

[JimmyJack]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I still do not understand what specifically you think is not well smoothed in this PNG. I have to zoom in to at least 250% of actual size to begin to see the effects of antialiasing. At 100% it looks fine.

Is this from zoomed in views or is everything at 100% of its actual size?

400%. AFAIK any multiple of 100 is true.
(Gotta use zoom. Getting the pixels to show up at any reasonable size on output would require resampling..... and that is a whole other can of worms. 🥴)

[User_783649]

@JimmyJack Can you explain — why there are four samples? What apps you compared here? 

[R C-R]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

400%. AFAIK any multiple of 100 is true.
(Gotta use zoom. Getting the pixels to show up at any reasonable size on output would require resampling..... and that is a whole other can of worms. 🥴)

Doesn't displaying the pixels at 400% (or any other integer multiple of 100%) of their actual size require resampling too? Sure, 200%, 400%, 800%, etc. should offer very straightforward ways to map the pixels to the display if everything is pixel aligned prior to the export, but otherwise aren't we right back to a comparison of antialiasing methods?

[JimmyJack]

7 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Doesn't displaying the pixels at 400% (or any other integer multiple of 100%) of their actual size require resampling too? Sure, 200%, 400%, 800%, etc. should offer very straightforward ways to map the pixels to the display if everything is pixel aligned prior to the export, but otherwise aren't we right back to a comparison of antialiasing methods?

Not really sure how that works. All I can tell you, is that if I go from 800% to 700% to 600% on an on screen detail nothing changes. I mean none.
With any resample option.... big changes (some bigger than others, obviously).
The image I posted, at 100%, looks exactly like the 400% on screen magnification. An output in scale, or even an on screen rasterization, does not.

And, time and time and time..... and time again we have been told not to trust what we see on the screen unless it's at 100% or multiples.

I guess exporting at a multiple, would be okay simply because all would be treated equally keeping the playing field level. It's just adding another layer on top of the issue at hand, as Bicubic, lanczos etc etc yield very different results. But changes nonetheless. Looking at a result that has been altered further would confuse the perception and therefore the experiment (imho).

In order to get up close to the differences, (I think) this is the way to go. But I'm all ears....

[JimmyJack]

1 hour ago, Alex M said:

@JimmyJack Can you explain — why there are four samples? What apps you compared here? 

Hehehe. That didn't take long.

Tempted to let that remain a mystery. 😈

But.... okay. Two from AI. Two from AD. 😇

(maybe there should be two from PS also. Hmmm. That's a clue 😉)

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

All I can tell you, is that if I go from 800% to 700% to 600% on an on screen detail nothing changes.

What app are you using to do that? Does anything change if you use some other app?

[User_783649]

@JimmyJack AD is #3 and probably #4 (with probably Blend Gamma value put more towards 3.0 which gives it more aggressive and rough antialiasing). However, I'm not sure how exactly you were able to get such bad looking text in this last sample. I was never able to do something close to that. And #1 and #2 seem to be Adobe.

[JimmyJack]

2 minutes ago, R C-R said:

What app are you using to do that? Does anything change if you use some other app?

Not sure I understand. The zoom in Affinity. Other apps give the same result. 
Affinity is the only one, though, that I've been told not to trust except at 100s, ....in a variety of situation.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, Alex M said:

@JimmyJack AD is #3 and probably #4 (with probably Blend Gamma value put more towards 3.0 which gives it more aggressive and rough antialiasing). However, I'm not sure how exactly you were able to get such bad looking text in this last sample. I was never able to do something close to that. And #1 and #2 seem to be Adobe.

I think it would be helpful if we could see each original file -- as it is there are too many possible variables that can cause differences large & small.

[JimmyJack]

7 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I think it would be helpful if we could see each original file -- as it is there are too many possible variables that can cause differences large & small.

Actually there are no variables. Everything has been treated the same.
What I think you want is to see a 100% output.
It's just harder to see, but all the same stuff is there.
Here you go. (original text is also attached in AD file. I did not attach the file with resulting pngs, yet, as that would give away the answers.)

text test original text.afdesign

[walt.farrell]

2 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

(to me there is a clear difference)

I don't think anyone has denied that there is a difference.

The question, I think, is: is one of them clearly better, when viewed at 100%.

And if everyone can agree that one is clearly better, and it's not Affinity, then the next question will be whether it is enough better to justify spending time to improve the Affinity output.

[JimmyJack]

21 minutes ago, Alex M said:

@JimmyJack AD is #3 and probably #4 (with probably Blend Gamma value put more towards 3.0 which gives it more aggressive and rough antialiasing). However, I'm not sure how exactly you were able to get such bad looking text in this last sample. I was never able to do something close to that. And #1 and #2 seem to be Adobe.

Thanks, AGAIN @Alex M. 

Gonna let this hang out there a bit as well. Promise I won't forget.
 

[JimmyJack]

2 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I don't think anyone has denied that there is a difference.

The question, I think, is: is one of them clearly better, when viewed at 100%.

And if everyone can agree that one is clearly better, and it's not Affinity, then the next question will be whether it is enough better to justify spending time to improve the Affinity output.

Yes I do think one is better.

[JimmyJack]

12 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

You need to do a test where you don't have access to the source file, just the results. It is so easy to state x is better when you know what it is. Pepsi vs Coca Cola.

😅 You give me waaaay too much credit 🤣 ! My brain's not that big. I got all mixed up putting the comparison together. I kept looking at the screen going "geez, that one sucks.... which one is that again??" (he says as he has to check layers panels).

But you're right. I waited 5 pages for a head to head. Had to do it myself.
Which reminds me, I think someone posted something right before me. Gotta check that out.