How do I convert a selection into a vector shape?

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, Dangerous said:

True, that fact it appears to act like a vector curve does not make it a vector curve

, it does not make them a pixel selection either ...

But it should be obvious that it does not even appear to act like a vector curve. For example, when you create a vector curve you are creating a new layer object on the Layers panel. It can be hidden or shown in the workspace: given a stroke that can be colored, dashed, & its width adjusted; filled with a solid color or gradient; etc. All of that is non-destructive, meaning any of those things can be changed at any time now or in the future. It can be converted to a text path, moved anywhere on the canvas without it affecting anything else, given various arrow ends, & more.

Marching ants pixel selections act very differently. They aren't even created using the same tools as vector objects. They can only be saved as spare channels; they never appear as independent objects on the Layers panel. Unlike vector objects they can be inverted or refined, define an area where a pixel layer can be painted on with pixel brushes or filled with the Flood Fill Tool, & so on. They can be created from color, tonal, or alpha ranges of selected pixel layers but not from selected vector curve layers.

[Dangerous]

6 hours ago, R C-R said:

But it should be obvious that it does not even appear to act like a vector curve. For example, when you create a vector curve you are creating a new layer object on the Layers panel. It can be hidden or shown in the workspace: given a stroke that can be colored, dashed, & its width adjusted; filled with a solid color or gradient; etc. All of that is non-destructive, meaning any of those things can be changed at any time now or in the future. It can be converted to a text path, moved anywhere on the canvas without it affecting anything else, given various arrow ends, & more.

Marching ants pixel selections act very differently. They aren't even created using the same tools as vector objects. They can only be saved as spare channels; they never appear as independent objects on the Layers panel. Unlike vector objects they can be inverted or refined, define an area where a pixel layer can be painted on with pixel brushes or filled with the Flood Fill Tool, & so on. They can be created from color, tonal, or alpha ranges of selected pixel layers but not from selected vector curve layers.

I was not going to reply but feel I must. You are confusing the marching ants with the area they enclose. The enclosed area can be saves as a new layer, the marching ants can't. The enclosed area can be saved a spare channel, the marching ants CAN'T. The enclosed area can be painted on with a pixel brush or flood filled and so on but the marching ants can't. The area selected can be inverted but that is achieved by a second set of marching ants round the entire image and the enclosed area becomes the area between the two sets of marching ants. The enclosed area can be made in to a new pixel layer, the marching ants can't. 
You say a marching ants selection area can be created from colour, tonal, or alpha ranges of selected pixel layers but not from selected vector curve layers, WRONG, you can create a marching ants selection area from a vector layer I do that often. What you can't do is select the vector area enclosed by the marching ants

In your reply you say "Marching ants pixel selections act very differently" but again you talk about the enclosed area and not the marching ants that surround the area. Are you deliberately confusing the two?
AP (NOT YOU) creates a vector layer when you create a curve, YOU create a pixel layer and add pixels to it with the brush, flood fill tool etc. The MARCHING ANTS do not have a layer, you can't turn them on & off as you can with vector or pixel layers, you can only deselect them and once that is done the only way to get them back is to undo the deselection. The MARCHING ANTS are independent of both vector & pixel layers and as you say 'They aren't even created using the same tools as vector objects' they are not even created using the same tools as pixel based objects, a fact you failed to mention. They are created using their own tools. You can't copy & paste them, yes you copy & paste the area they surround but you do not copy the marching ants.

 

The marching ants are an element in their own right, not part of a vector or pixel layer. Once created you can add to or subtract from the selection area, refine it etc even when you have a vector layer selected. The program must have a record of that area plotted somewhere in it's 'work area' and therefore it should not be beyond the skills of the programmers to use that data to create a curve.

I will make this my last comment on this matter unless you have proof that THE MARCHING ANTS (not the area they enclose) are pixel based other than saying 'they are because I say so'.
 

 

 

[v_kyr]

Quote

A pixel selection is simply a drawn area on your image (bounded by a flashing dashed line, often called 'marching ants'). A selection is created for various reasons: ...

• Creating pixel selections
• Moving and transforming pixel selections
• ... etc.

2 hours ago, Dangerous said:

The marching ants are an element in their own right, not part of a vector or pixel layer. ...

Well if we strictly talk about the element (marching ants selections) itself, then yes. Though we can't save/restore such selections in Affinity for possible later reuse. - Further, in Affinity apps the marching ants selections are explicitely used in pixel layer contexts.

For example in Affinity, if you make some shapes (vectors) you can make a marching ants selection around those, but you can't copy or make any real use out of that selection for vectors then. You have to rasterize the vector layer into a pixel layer, in order to perform a simple copy of the selected area, or any other operation here. - Meaning, that marching ants selections in Affinity are used in pixel layer contexts and won't offer you something useful at all in/for vector layer contexts.

 

For the overall thread theme itself, see also the following yet not implemented statements ...

• Convert selection into path

 

[GFS]

12 hours ago, v_kyr said:

What was the name and who was the manufacture of that old app?

Live Picture, by Live Picture (a bunch of recently graduated students).

It was essentially a compositing software, which was conceived to be able to do on a Mac, what was until then, done in *extremely* expensive retouching houses, as they moved away from manual retouching (transparencies, scalpels, bleach and tiny-brush+ink).  These large installations were pixel-pushers with the actual computers themselves in separate rooms due to their size and required air-conditioning.  Typically 2x ~2metre cube sized units, on the floor.  Cost ~£2million late80s + 1 year operator training.  Cost to client ~£500 per hour.  Obviously their use was almost 100% advertising.   It was pretty crazy, i.e. loony.. to think it could be done on a Mac back then, but 2 years mathematical thinking, followed by 2 years programming and there it was.

No other app has ever come close to what it could do, even though the patents have been over for a while.  Happy to expand if anyone is interested.

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, GFS said:

Live Picture, by Live Picture (a bunch of recently graduated students).

Ok, here are some references about that LP app I could still find nowadays ...

• Live Picture – Software that was way ahead of its time ***
• InfoWorld - 26.06.1995 - Seite 84 - Google Books
• Live Picture 2.6.1
• Live Picture 2.6.2 for MAC OS (pbase forum)
• Photo Editing with Live Picture 2.6.2 (Mac OS 9 Lives)
• Live Picture gets new lease on life (vector based paths feature mentioning)
• IVUE file format
• The Next Big Thing: Live Picture

[GFS]

28 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

Ok, here are some references about that LP app I could still find nowadays ...

😊 Amazing that there's anything really.  The last vs was produced in '97.

There are so many things which it did so well and that are still unmatched today.  Example:  Imagine taking a 300megapixel 16-bit tiff, then, using a brush of 500megapixel size, distort your image in a single smooth, gentle brush-stroke... and ... the distortion is applied as you paint/brush in real-time.  The instant you lift your brush, it's done.  Even if you take your brush and do a frantic squiggle back and forth, it's done instantly.  Not even a seconds pause.  Instant.

[Old Bruce]

@Dangerous think of the Marching ants as the lines on maps for national borders or height contours. When you go to the actual location there is no coloured line on the ground. Compare that to the blue line for a river or a grey line for a road.

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, Dangerous said:

You are confusing the marching ants with the area they enclose.

It is you who is confused. A marching ants selection is just an enclosed area in the document, nothing more.

It has no content of its own -- there doesn't even have to be anything in the document to create a marching ants selection. Try it yourself. Create a new empty AP document & for example drag out a marching ants selection with the Selection Brush Tool. Or just open this empty.afphoto example. It can be saved as a spare channel but it is still just an area of the document, not a separate object like a vector shape would be.

As has already been mentioned, you can make a marching ants selection that encloses part or all of a vector object but you can't do anything to the area of that object that it encloses because marching ants selection are pixel based selections & vector objects are not. Thus, they only have meaning in pixel related contexts & do nothing more than define areas pixel-based tools can interact with.

[languidcorpse]

Just checking in; dare I ask? Has this function ever been implemented? By this thread a moderator said it was coming soon in like 2014. Which now has been just over 8 years last week. 😆

[Dangerous]

9 minutes ago, languidcorpse said:

Just checking in; dare I ask? Has this function ever been implemented? By this thread a moderator said it was coming soon in like 2014. Which now has been just over 8 years last week. 😆

not as yet. All you can do in Affinity is trace with the pen tool.

 

[MEB]

Hi @languidcorpse,
Welcome to Affinity Forums
There's still no way to do this. The information I provided earlier in 2014 was the information I had/plans at the time, unfortunately it didn't got implemented.
I have no idea if it will ever be. Apologies for the misinformation.

[Ferdinand13]

Dear people at Affinity, you really have to implement this feature. I'm just stuck at the most basic of jobs and can't do it using either of your (otherwise quite stellar) apps. I've now downloaded Gimp to help me turn a text selection (really jagged complex outline) into a path. This is really basic level stuff that must be included in the next update. Thanks!

[languidcorpse]

Hi MEB,

Yeah, It's sad too, because I really like working with many of the vector tools better in Affinity. To be missing such an essential step of vector manipulation in a vector program at this point; it is years beyond acceptable. It is frustrating as a teacher I want to use the product in class, but I cannot demonstrate the workflow nor can I in good faith point students to a product which cannot provide core manipulation in a professional setting. Sadly I no longer sing its praises. I gave up.    

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Red Sands said:

Just try this product:
https://vectorizer.ai/

Unbelievably better than traditional tracing. This site is probably best at tracing graphics it analyses itself, but the point is that tracing based on AI simply makes better curves and fewer nodes.

It certainly shows promise but after testing it with a variety of png & jpeg files I have, it still created shapes with huge numbers of nodes no matter which output options I tried. Also, the lack of centerline tracing made it just about useless for a small collection of simple line drawing style files I would like to convert to vectors.

I am also not keen on the idea of having to upload my files to a site unless they are clear about if or how they might use those files or the data/metadata they contain in any way that might not be in my best interests or compromise my privacy or security.

[languidcorpse]

On 7/30/2023 at 4:15 PM, Red Sands said:

as implemented in Photoshop

Photoshop, Inkscape,  Krita.

On 7/30/2023 at 4:15 PM, Red Sands said:

Just try this product:

This is the standard reply. No.  Defeating the process of my workflow and interrupting my process to accommodate a tool that is missing functions. No thank you. If it doesn't allow for the process to be implemented then I use a tool which does. I am a working professional and time is essential. As an art director I find this response sophomoric. I would never waste my teams time implementing a broken tool for which we would have to accommodate with our time.

I will add; these types of responses obviously come from people who do not use products on a professional creating concept art and design.   

[v_kyr]

38 minutes ago, Red Sands said:

I only referred to vectoriser.ai so that you can see the quality of AI bitmap-to-curves, which is infinitely better than the old algorithms for bitmap tracing.

LOL, actually I highly doubt that. Since in some own recent tests it didn't come close (in terms of accuracy and overall color recognition & generation quality here) to the for example used >= 7 years old algorithm in VectorMagic.

[GFS]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:07 PM, Red Sands said:

it's not worth waiting for the algorithms of the past

The past was just fine thank you.

(Maybe you missed my little screen-grab-video of a 30yr old app where a brushstroke/shape/selection of any sort, is automatically a vector and therefore can be reshaped with a brush, or turned the opposite way into a shape with Nodes?  FWIW, Adobe have never managed this either.  Also FWIW, although it probably won't mean much to today's users... my very first job, using the software, was a 100mpx file, in 1995, on a Mac that could only just fit the file onto it's HD and despite that, LP ran in 'real-time'.  Not even a hint of spinning beachballs.  Everything, every gesture, was instant.  Like painting on paper.  The only wait time, was once finished, producing an output file, which could take a while. Maybe as much as 20mins, but usually only 2 or 3.  You could batch output though.)

[languidcorpse]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:07 PM, Red Sands said:

That's where you're so terribly and miserably wrong

About what? About the fact that your response was drivel.

[Mr Lucky]

On 10/14/2014 at 5:18 PM, MEB said:

This feature was requested a couple of times already and it's coming soon.

Not much longer to wait I guess...

[GFS]

20 hours ago, Red Sands said:

I used software long before 1995, and am so much better served by modern algorithms and now AI. I don't miss much from back then. Ah, I miss the days before the internet. Pre-madness.

So did you use Live Picture?  If not, then how can you have an informed opinion about it?

Either way, it makes no difference.  Serif will do what works best for them.  The only point I'm making, is that this sort of tool, existed 30 years ago, in an app, that sadly didn't survive the usual bunch of money grubbers that got their hands on it and the industry carried on with the likes of Adobe running their company as a 'buy and kill' machine. Sigh.

[GFS]

12 minutes ago, Red Sands said:

And those will be my last words here.

Is that a promise?

[languidcorpse]

On 8/3/2023 at 2:43 PM, Red Sands said:

Parkinson's law of triviality

The only trivial thing about this thread has been your character and contributions. Trivial and and pedantic as well as misinformed.

On 8/3/2023 at 2:43 PM, Red Sands said:

I myself am involved in large projects in an industry that puts large IT suppliers to hard work with fairly large products

Who cares? More trivial and useless information. This is so irrelevant! I can't see what this has to do with anything besides how many times you can fit the word, "large" into one sentence. Do you work on large stuff? Personally, I am impressed with your largeness. I can't see how you have the time to even comment on this trivial thread.

On 8/3/2023 at 2:43 PM, Red Sands said:

And those will be my last words here.

Thanks be to god!

[Lee D]

This is thread has been locked for the moment.