No smooth contour.

[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.

[LondonSquirrel]

1 minute ago, JimmyJack said:

Yes I do think one is better.

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.

[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.

[R C-R]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Actually there are no variables. Everything has been treated the same.

What resampling method & ICC profile did you use in AD for your export? Are you certain both are exactly the same as what you use in AI for the export?

10 minutes ago, JimmyJack said:

Yes I do think one is better.

I can see differences, but since none have perfectly smooth contours, deciding which of them might be "better" remains a subjective judgement with no definitive answer. For example, to my eye the "P" in one of them is better than in the others but the "a" is better in another & the "O" in all of them is not very good.

[JimmyJack]

18 minutes ago, R C-R said:

What resampling method & ICC profile did you use in AD for your export? Are you certain both are exactly the same as what you use in AI for the export?

There is no resizing being done. Therefore the resampling methods are irrelevant. Kinda the point 😉.
Yes same color sRGB 2.1. Yes.

[Designer1]

12 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

There is no resizing being done. Therefore the resampling methods are irrelevant. Kinda the point 😉.
Yes same color sRGB 2.1. Yes.

@JimmyJackTry with a CMYK document. The smoothing will be a bit worse.

[PaulEC]

On 3/19/2022 at 3:52 PM, Designer1 said:

I will not participate further in this discussion.

A couple of pages later - I have looked at, and tried myself, numerous combinations of factors in exporting files in different ways from several apps etc etc etc, I have come to three conclusions:

1: Different apps produce very slightly different results. None (IMHO) is "better" than another.

2: Any "quality" issues are down to the settings used, not to any intrinsic problem with Affinity apps. (i.e. - there is nothing that needs to be "fixed".)

3: I am wasting my time here and "I will not participate further in this discussion." (At least we agree on something!) 😶

[Designer1]

[Designer1]

First is from CorelDRAW, second from Affinity Designer. Open Sans, 144pt. RGB black.

[GarryP]

Designer1: Have you made sure that the texts in your latest examples are drawn in exactly the same place in each document?
And by exactly the same place I don’t just mean that the layers have the same X and Y coordinates but the furthest-left point of the outer curve of the “O” was at exactly the same place (to the most accurate pixel coordinate available in both applications) in each document and the same for the furthest-top point of that “O” glyph.
If they are not then it’s probably not a fair comparison.

[Designer1]

10 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Designer1: Have you made sure that the texts in your latest examples are drawn in exactly the same place in each document?
And by exactly the same place I don’t just mean that the layers have the same X and Y coordinates but the furthest-left point of the outer curve of the “O” was at exactly the same place (to the most accurate pixel coordinate available in both applications) in each document and the same for the furthest-top point of that “O” glyph.
If they are not then it’s probably not a fair comparison.

The word Open is aligned in the same way in the middle of the A4. The colour is the same and so is the font size. In addition, it must be said that it is CorelDRAW from 2013.

[User_783649]

@Designer1 First one has obviously better quality. In the second sample there are various individual "leftovers" semi-opaque pixels that make it appear more harsh and fuzzy. While in the first sample their opacity appears to be more aligned with their geometrical placement and distance from the main curve. Therefore, an overall quality is better.

I’d suggest you sending these directly to Serif support. Just to not waste your (probably valuable) own time. It will be better to receive qualified response from them or even get some kind of engineer feedback on this issue.

By continue posting here you just trying to convince other regular users. I mean, everyone has different eyes, different screens and different expectations. For some people all these are just... letters, you know. Many people won’t even able to spot the difference between some typefaces, so what to say about subpixels and quality of antialiasing?

[JimmyJack]

Not in the same spot. 
I suggest making one master (vectot) file and opening in various programs rather than trying to recreate something multiple times.

[Designer1]

1 hour ago, Alex M said:

@Designer1 First one has obviously better quality. In the second sample there are various individual "leftovers" semi-opaque pixels that make it appear more harsh and fuzzy. While in the first sample their opacity appears to be more aligned with their geometrical placement and distance from the main curve. Therefore, an overall quality is better.

I’d suggest you sending these directly to Serif support. Just to not waste your (probably valuable) own time. It will be better to receive qualified response from them or even get some kind of engineer feedback on this issue.

By continue posting here you just trying to convince other regular users. I mean, everyone has different eyes, different screens and different expectations. For some people all these are just... letters, you know. Many people won’t even able to spot the difference between some typefaces, so what to say about subpixels and quality of antialiasing?

 

@MEB

I can send Serif support these files. What email does Serif support have? You are also welcome to send to Serif Support.

Support

For questions, reporting bugs and requesting features please post on our forums.

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/contact/

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, JimmyJack said:

Not in the same spot. 

As I think is also demonstrated in this difference.afphoto example, where the two PNGs were added as pixel layers to an AP file with the corel one set to the Difference blend mode. If the text was at the same position in both then there should be no differences & the result should be pure black.

[JimmyJack]

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

As I think is also demonstrated in this difference.afphoto example, where the two PNGs were added as pixel layers to an AP file with the corel one set to the Difference blend mode. If the text was at the same position in both then there should be no differences & the result should be pure black.

Mmmmm, close. Yes, if the same the result should be black. But, the difference mode is combining the two so as to give the appearance of a halo around the the whole of each letter so you don't really know which direction one or the other is off, just the total effect.
Keep and blend and give either layer a 50% opacity and you'll see the actual offset. 
Or, just give them normal blends, get in close and toggle the visibility of the top one.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, JimmyJack said:

Yes, if the same the result should be black.

I was not interested in how they differ, only in demonstrating in another way that they do. That's why I went with the difference blend mode.