Affinity Photo 2.1 (not sure if it is only related to this) copy and paste and export is not consistent

[Brian_J]

@Old Bruce @R C-R The issue was identified earlier in this thread. CyberAngel used the Transform panel to modify the pixel selection before copying — this is what caused the unwanted semitransparent pixels in the copied/pasted layer.

[Old Bruce]

4 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

@Old Bruce @R C-R The issue was identified earlier in this thread. CyberAngel used the Transform panel to modify the pixel selection before copying ...

When you need to do that make a new Pixel layer after making the marquee selection. Select this new (empty/clear/transparent) Pixel layer and do the transforming of the marquee selection there, then use the layers panel to select the proper pixel layer for copying.

[R C-R]

9 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

@Old Bruce @R C-R The issue was identified earlier in this thread. CyberAngel used the Transform panel to modify the pixel selection before copying — this is what caused the unwanted semitransparent pixels in the copied/pasted layer.

Are you saying that before copying @CyberAngel increased the width of the 'marching ants' pixel selection to > 224 pixels or something else?

[Brian_J]

4 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

When you need to do that make a new Pixel layer after making the marquee selection. Select this new (empty/clear/transparent) Pixel layer and do the transforming of the marquee selection there, then use the layers panel to select the proper pixel layer for copying.

That doesn't correct the issue for me. Transforming a pixel selection in the Transform panel "blurs" the selection (for lack of a better word) even if an empty Pixel layer is selected when making/editing the selection.

[Old Bruce]

4 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Transforming a pixel selection in the Transform panel "blurs" the selection (for lack of a better word) even if an empty Pixel layer is selected when making/editing the selection.

Goodness, I see what you mean. I mainly use that trick for moving correctly sized marquee selections.

I guess that is what happens when I got used to using vector objects to use for making my selections instead of fiddling with marquee selections. 

[Brian_J]

10 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Are you saying that before copying @CyberAngel increased the width of the 'marching ants' pixel selection to > 224 pixels or something else?

Here are the steps CyberAngel used to make the selection, as I understand it:

1. Dragged out a rough selection with the Rectangle Marquee Tool. (Note: make the initial selection fairly small to make sure the issue is replicated.)
2. In the Transform Panel, edited the width and height of the selection to be 224 x 248.
3. Positioned the selection to the location that was to be copied.
4. Copied the original 73389.png layer and pasted.

The above steps resulted in a new layer that is 225 x 248 px. There is 1 px on the right side of the copied layer of semitransparent pixels caused by transforming the selection.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Transforming a pixel selection in the Transform panel "blurs" the selection (for lack of a better word) even if an empty Pixel layer is selected when making/editing the selection.

How specifically are you changing the size or position of the marching ants pixel selection in the Transform panel? After doing that do you immediately see anything different or is it only after copying & pasting to a new layer or doing something else?

I ask because I have no problems changing the size or position of the marching ants pixel selection using the Transform panel, & it does not by itself cause any blurring or any other changes to the document. As long as all the size & position values of the selection are whole pixel values, I can copy & paste without any problems. I just need to make sure when I paste that I do that to whole pixel positions.

[Brian_J]

9 minutes ago, R C-R said:

How specifically are you changing the size or position of the marching ants pixel selection in the Transform panel? After doing that do you immediately see anything different or is it only after copying & pasting to a new layer or doing something else?

I ask because I have no problems changing the size or position of the marching ants pixel selection using the Transform panel, & it does not by itself cause any blurring or any other changes to the document. As long as all the size & position values of the selection are whole pixel values, I can copy & paste without any problems. I just need to make sure when I paste that I do that to whole pixel positions.

The selection is changed in the Transform panel by entering new values in the width and height fields.

If I understand how pixel selections work, transforming a pixel selection (e.g., in the Transform Panel or in Quick Mask mode) is equivalent to transforming a raster pixel layer — even though the pixel selection doesn't contain anything, the initial selection dragged out with the Marquee Tool is treated as if it's a raster image being resized... and thus it loses quality, which creates anti-aliasing when using the selection to copy/paste.

[Old Bruce]

After a bit of testing I think if we start with a larger than needed marquee selection and shrink it in the transform panel (after switching to the Move tool of course) then there is no transparency problem. Perhaps this is also a reason I have not seen this sort of thing in my work.

[R C-R]

8 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Here are the steps CyberAngel used to make the selection, as I understand it:

1. Dragged out a rough selection with the Rectangle Marquee Tool. (Note: make the initial selection fairly small to make sure the issue is replicated.)
2. In the Transform Panel, edited the width and height of the selection to be 224 x 248.
3. Positioned the selection to the location that was to be copied.
4. Copied the original 73389.png layer and pasted.

The above steps resulted in a new layer that is 225 x 248 px. There is 1 px on the right side of the copied layer of semitransparent pixels caused by transforming the selection.

I can't duplicate that. I always get the pasted selection to be 224 x 248 px. However, I am unclear on what is meant by step 3, positioning the selection to the location that is to be copied. What location is that -- IOW in the test document what are its X & Y coordinates?

8 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

If I understand how pixel selections work, transforming a pixel selection (e.g., in the Transform Panel or in Quick Mask mode) is equivalent to transforming a raster pixel layer — even though the pixel selection doesn't contain anything, the initial selection dragged out with the Marquee Tool is treated as if it's a raster image being resized... and thus it loses quality, which creates anti-aliasing when using the selection to copy/paste.

A 'marching ants' selection is independent of any layer, pixel or otherwise. Changing its size or position only has an effect if a pixel layer is selected when that is done. But of course if a pixel layer is selected when that is done it will affect the selected pixels on that layer so if they are stretched or shrunk they will have to be resampled, typically resulting in antialiasing, which might make those pixels look blurry.

[lepr]

44 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

If I understand how pixel selections work, transforming a pixel selection (e.g., in the Transform Panel or in Quick Mask mode) is equivalent to transforming a raster pixel layer — even though the pixel selection doesn't contain anything, the initial selection dragged out with the Marquee Tool is treated as if it's a raster image being resized... and thus it loses quality, which creates anti-aliasing when using the selection to copy/paste.

Yes, the key to understanding what is happening is realising a pixel selection is equivalent to a pixel mask. Both are raster objects where each pixel is an intensity value in the normalised range of 0.0 through 1.0.

The marching ants help the user visualise the selection by enclosing regions where the selection pixels have an intensity of 0.5 or greater.

[R C-R]

8 minutes ago, lepr said:

Yes, the key to understanding what is happening is realising a pixel selection is equivalent to a pixel mask.

But it does not in & of itself define anything other than an area of the document, where there may or may not be any pixels in the document to transform or mask.

[lepr]

54 minutes ago, R C-R said:

But it does not in & of itself define anything other than an area of the document, where there may or may not be any pixels in the document to transform or mask.

The important point in the context of this thread is that because a pixel selection is a raster object just like a mask, transforming it (for example, stretching it) results in it being resampled and becoming 'fuzzier'.

[R C-R]

Just now, lepr said:

The important point in the context of this thread is that because a pixel selection is a raster object just like a mask, transforming it (for example, stretching it) results in it being resampled and becoming 'fuzzy'.

That only happens if the selection is transformed while a pixel layer is selected. Otherwise, it just changes the size or position of the selection without changing anything in any layer.

[lepr]

7 minutes ago, R C-R said:

That only happens if the selection is transformed while a pixel layer is selected. Otherwise, it just changes the size or position of the selection without changing anything in any layer.

I said nothing about the pixels in a Pixel layer being changed/resampled. My comments regarded the pixel selection itself, which is made of pixels just like a pixel mask.

 

[R C-R]

5 minutes ago, lepr said:

My comments regarded the pixel selection itself, which is made of pixels just like a pixel mask.

It is not exactly made of pixels. It is just an area of the document where there may or may not be any pixels in any of the document's layers.

I only mention this because some users assume that a marching ants pixel selection actually is a part of a particular layer, & thus has the properties of that layer.

In this respect it is different from a pixel mask, which is a type of document layer.

[lepr]

21 minutes ago, R C-R said:

It is not exactly made of pixels.

It is made of pixels, the same as a pixel mask is made of pixels. Not colourful pixels of course, but pixels nonetheless. You can even directly create a pixel selection from a pixel mask. An Affinity Spare Channel is another raster object with each pixel containing an intensity value which is directly interchangeable with selections and masks.

21 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is different from a pixel mask, which is a type of document layer.

It is true that a pixel selection (or a Spare Channel) are not document layers, but the point with regard to this thread is that a pixel selection is a raster object, and if transformed, it then becomes fuzzier due to resampling when it is subsequently utilised in some way such as duplicating a region of a Pixel object or defining an alpha channel or creating a mask.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, lepr said:

It is true that a pixel selection (or a Spare Channel) are not document layers, but the point with regard to this thread is that a pixel selection is a raster object.

But a pixel mask is a document layer while a pixel selection is not. And if a pixel selection is a separate object, what exactly does it contain?

EDIT: by that I mean if it does not contain any color or alpha data of its own then what other kind of pixel data is there or it to contain?

Edited May 20, 2023 by R C-R

[CyberAngel]

8 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

First thing I did was turn on Snapping and make sure I had Move by Whole Pixels turned off and only had snap to Grid turned on. Using my 1 pixel grid. Then I dragged a marquee from the upper right to lower left. I zoomed in to check the corners and then I copied and pasted and wound up with the 224 x 248 pixel sized layer.

Snaping is turned on! Clearly you can see that in the images

[CyberAngel]

7 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

When you need to do that make a new Pixel layer after making the marquee selection. Select this new (empty/clear/transparent) Pixel layer and do the transforming of the marquee selection there, then use the layers panel to select the proper pixel layer for copying.

Did that and did not work!

[CyberAngel]

5 hours ago, lepr said:

The important point in the context of this thread is that because a pixel selection is a raster object just like a mask, transforming it (for example, stretching it) results in it being resampled and becoming 'fuzzier'.

But in my case, I am not getting fuzzier images. All I am getting is that one extra pixel on the width. Why does Affinity Photo selection work differently to other packages like this, this is stupid!

[CyberAngel]

4 hours ago, lepr said:

It is made of pixels, the same as a pixel mask is made of pixels. Not colourful pixels of course, but pixels nonetheless. You can even directly create a pixel selection from a pixel mask. An Affinity Spare Channel is another raster object with each pixel containing an intensity value which is directly interchangeable with selections and masks.

It is true that a pixel selection (or a Spare Channel) are not document layers, but the point with regard to this thread is that a pixel selection is a raster object, and if transformed, it then becomes fuzzier due to resampling when it is subsequently utilised in some way such as duplicating a region of a Pixel object or defining an alpha channel or creating a mask.

But mine is not turning fuzzier, it is just one extra pixel and no fuzziness!!

[Brian_J]

Just now, CyberAngel said:

But in my case, I am not getting fuzzier images. All I am getting is that one extra pixel on the width.

As I pointed out in a previous comment, the extra 1 px width isn’t completely transparent… the edge of the pasted layer is “fuzzy” (antialiasing), but it’s barely noticeable. The variance between the initial selection made with the Marquee Tool and the final selection finished up in the Transform Panel effects how “fuzzy” the image is… just like when resizing a raster image — the more it’s resized, the more antialiased it is.

[CyberAngel]

30 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

As I pointed out in a previous comment, the extra 1 px width isn’t completely transparent… the edge of the pasted layer is “fuzzy” (antialiasing), but it’s barely noticeable. The variance between the initial selection made with the Marquee Tool and the final selection finished up in the Transform Panel effects how “fuzzy” the image is… just like when resizing a raster image — the more it’s resized, the more antialiased it is.

And I get that.

However, I am saying this is not expected behaviour for me. I am used to this same work flow in other applications and not having to jump through hoops to just simply copy a section and create a clean crisp image from that selection. Not only that, but the only way to resize and fine tune the selection is with the transform options. Other applications have something similar but also have handles that make it easier.

Now the problem I have is this, how do I do what I want to do?

How do I just simply copy that selection without any issues and get back exactly what I want, in the same exact manner other applications do it?

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, CyberAngel said:

Not only that, but the only way to resize and fine tune the selection is with the transform options.

As previously mentioned, you can also use the Quick Mask function with the Move Tool to drag the selection around or change its size by dragging on its handles.