patrick_h_lauke Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 This is a bug/issue from v1 which is still present in v2 - see and Attaching some fresh recordings from v2. The crux of the problem, from discussion in the v1 bugs, seems to be that when pasting/dragging an image into a much larger image, Affinity tries to center the pasted/dragged image, which then leads to fractional x/y coordinates. When snapping/pixel alignment is on, these fractional coordinates should be rounded to the nearest full pixel. affinity-photo-pixel-snap-copy-paste.mp4 affinity-photo-pixel-snap-drag-drop.mp4 KarlLegion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted December 29, 2022 Share Posted December 29, 2022 I have hit this also with V2.0.03 -- it's a flat-out bug, I think. And it's not just when putting a small image into a big one. Related problem which I find even worse: if you scale an imported image to the snap edge, the border pixels are not fully covered. This is serious because you end up with a semi-translucent 1-pixel border. Workarounds are very awkward; you have to overscale by 1 pixel, which means snapping is basically worthless. A simple test reproduces the bug -- I even attached an Affinity project file drag a 200x200 white square into a 210x210 cavas scale it to fill the canvas (note all pixel snaps are on etc) You can see the fractional coverage bug in the gray artifacts at the edges and corner: scale-snap-bug.afphoto Old Bruce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted December 29, 2022 Share Posted December 29, 2022 You need to learn that a pixel that is enlarged by a factor of 1.05 will never fit into a 1x1 pixel square, it will need a 2 x 2 pixel area. and unsurprisingly the edges are going to be semi transparent. Try enlarging a 30 x 30 pixel square. I will wager that it will work wonderfully. As will a 70 x 70 and 10 x 10 , 7 x 7 etc. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted December 29, 2022 Share Posted December 29, 2022 When you scale an image to fill another image, snap should snap the outer edges of the pixels into alignment. If that's done correctly, there will be no semi-translucent border regardless of scale factor -- 1.05, 0.99, 200/30... whatever. If you scale an opaque image to cover the entire canvas, the result should be opaque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted December 30, 2022 Share Posted December 30, 2022 16 hours ago, m888 said: When you scale an image to fill another image, snap should snap the outer edges of the pixels into alignment. If that's done correctly, there will be no semi-translucent border regardless of scale factor -- 1.05, 0.99, 200/30... whatever. Make a little black and white checkerboard, 2 pixels x 2 pixels stretch it to fit a 4 x 4 area. Then stretch it to fit a 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 area. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted December 30, 2022 Share Posted December 30, 2022 Here is an example Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted December 30, 2022 Share Posted December 30, 2022 I appreciate the careful answers. I agree the intermediate pixels are blended in your stretch; that is normal for any non-integral zoom. But in your own example, notice that when you stretch your 2x2 checkerboard to cover 3x3 or 4x4 or 5x5, the new area is FULLY covered. The edge pixels are not translucent. The bug occurs when you do a similar stretch of particular resolutions. Try it with the numbers I used: with pixel snap on, scale a 200x200 white image to FILL an empty 210x210 canvas. Two edges are slightly translucent. That's a bug with the snap. You can prove it's a bug by turning off pixel snap and dragging the the edge an infinitesimal fraction of a pixel past the edge of the canvas -- immediately the border pixels become opaque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted December 31, 2022 Share Posted December 31, 2022 21 hours ago, m888 said: I appreciate the careful answers. I agree the intermediate pixels are blended in your stretch; that is normal for any non-integral zoom. But in your own example, notice that when you stretch your 2x2 checkerboard to cover 3x3 or 4x4 or 5x5, the new area is FULLY covered. The edge pixels are not translucent. But I did do integer enlargements; 2 times 3 times and 4 times. Your enlargement was a 1.05 x enlargement. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted December 31, 2022 Share Posted December 31, 2022 Enlarging your 2x2 checkerboard to 3x3 is x1.5 (not integer). Enlarging it to 5x5 is x2.5. That's why you have blended gray pixels in those two zooms. Old Bruce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted December 31, 2022 Share Posted December 31, 2022 3 hours ago, m888 said: Enlarging your 2x2 checkerboard to 3x3 is x1.5 (not integer). Enlarging it to 5x5 is x2.5. That's why you have blended gray pixels in those two zooms. Well put. I obviously wasn't thinking. But your comment about blended pixels gets to the heart of the matter. It seems that there is some sort of weird mixing going on within the boundary of the pixel selection. Try filling a 2x2 pixel square with a complimentary colour to a background and you'll see what I mean. As you enlarge it the corners (and sides) get their colour mixed in with the background colour yet the alpha remains the same so it isn't a transparency thing. Use the Information panel. I shall have to think on this some more. Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 You could also download the sample project I attached earlier. It's very tiny -- just a 200x200 square scaled to 210. I'd be curious if you see the same fringe effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_h_lauke Posted January 1, 2023 Author Share Posted January 1, 2023 we could also split this into a separate discussion, as this has nothing to do with the original bug... KarlLegion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m888 Posted January 1, 2023 Share Posted January 1, 2023 I believe it's due to the same underlying bug (I've encountered the problem you described), but yes, I agree. There's been too much chatter on this. Apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlLegion Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 Hi @m888, I think it's not related to the pixel alignment because all coordinates are integral from your example. I suspect it's the issue on the image object. My theory is, image objects are treated as vector objects which have a "Viewbox" bounding the pixels. It seems to me that there are invisible thin transparent edges between the boundary and the pixel. As long as you rescale the object, those edges stretch. I can reproduce it but it only happens in Photo but not Designer. So, it's probably a bug. You can report it in a separate post. Hi @patrick_h_lauke, may I ask what's the reason for you to have the "Move by Whole Pixels" always turn on (I saw from your every screenshots)? I know its not related to your bug, I'm just curious. Shouldn't it be an obstacle to your pixel perfect work? Old Bruce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_h_lauke Posted January 3, 2023 Author Share Posted January 3, 2023 3 hours ago, KarlLegion said: may I ask what's the reason for you to have the "Move by Whole Pixels" always turn on (I saw from your every screenshots)? I know its not related to your bug, I'm just curious. Shouldn't it be an obstacle to your pixel perfect work? it shouldn't be an obstacle under the assumption that i always start off at full pixels, so every movement also being always at whole pixels would make no difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bruce Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 33 minutes ago, patrick_h_lauke said: it shouldn't be an obstacle under the assumption that i always start off at full pixels, so every movement also being always at whole pixels would make no difference All you need to do is use Alt/Option to duplicate something and release it off the pixel grid. the duplicate will now be off the grid (forever) unless you have Move by Whole Pixels turned off. You can even just move something and accidnently hit the option key before releasing the mouse button and bang! You are off the grid. Forever if the Move by Whole Pixels is on. Bottom line is if you are doing Pixel accurate work, Move by Whole Pixels is not your friend and can mess up your work real bad. KarlLegion 1 Quote Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 12.7.4 Affinity Designer 2.4.0 | Affinity Photo 2.4.0 | Affinity Publisher 2.4.0 | Beta versions as they appear. I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_h_lauke Posted January 3, 2023 Author Share Posted January 3, 2023 i don't duplicate by alt/option, and never accidentally hit any keys while moving/releasing things. anyway, let's stick to the actual topic here...copy/pasting or dragging/dropping things always trying to be centered, and ignoring the pixel alignment altogether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlLegion Posted January 3, 2023 Share Posted January 3, 2023 2 hours ago, patrick_h_lauke said: it shouldn't be an obstacle under the assumption that i always start off at full pixels Only if you did start off at full pixels... So right now it's not ideal unless the bug is fixed. Turning it off at least letting you realign those misaligned pixels. Of course it's up to you, I'm just try to help with some suggestions. Thanks for your reply anyway.🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staff Lee_T Posted January 24, 2023 Staff Share Posted January 24, 2023 Hi all, thanks for the extra detail on this, It's a known issue and will hopefully be resolved soon. Lee Brian_J 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.