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

[CyberAngel]

48 minutes ago, R C-R said:

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.

That is not a really good solution for something that other application can do quickly!

[Brian_J]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

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.

Unfortunately, using the Quick Mask function to change the size of a selection produces the same undesirable results.

[Brian_J]

3 hours ago, CyberAngel said:

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.

It’s frustrating when a feature you like in one app is missing in another app. I’m with you on that.

I don’t know why pixel selections are handled the way they are in Affinity apps. I hope it’s something Serif can address at some point. It could be there’s something in how Affinity is coded that makes the functionality we’re used to difficult to achieve… I have no idea.

3 hours ago, CyberAngel said:

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?

Unfortunately, it’s not possible. In order to copy a pixel-perfect selection, the Transform panel and Quick Mask can’t be used. I’ve found that using the Spacebar to reposition the rectangle marquee as it’s being drawn is quite helpful.

Other than that, you may want to post in the Feedback & Suggestions forum to share your thoughts with Serif.

[CyberAngel]

5 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

It’s frustrating when a feature you like in one app is missing in another app. I’m with you on that.

Wouldn't say it is missing, just doesn't work as one would expect. I mean I have been doing Graphic stuff like this in Photoshop back in the mid 90's, and while I do not recall how it did it, I know that the applications that I have used over the last few years have it.

 

5 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

I don’t know why pixel selections are handled the way they are in Affinity apps. I hope it’s something Serif can address at some point. It could be there’s something in how Affinity is coded that makes the functionality we’re used to difficult to achieve… I have no idea.

Yes, it would be nice. It is a basic workflow that every application has in some form. Select this, copy it, and paste it elsewhere. From Notepad to Video Editing Applications.

 

5 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Unfortunately, it’s not possible. In order to copy a pixel-perfect selection, the Transform panel and Quick Mask can’t be used. I’ve found that using the Spacebar to reposition the rectangle marquee as it’s being drawn is quite helpful.

I will look into that, but still not viable as we can always miss by one or two pixels and have to start again

 

5 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Other than that, you may want to post in the Feedback & Suggestions forum to share your thoughts with Serif.

Already have. I hope they see it as a positive change.

[lepr]

14 hours ago, R C-R said:

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?

The document Pixel Selection isn't present in the Layers panel, but it is present in the Channels panel.

Each of its pixels is a numeric intensity value, exactly like the pixels of a Pixel Mask. The intensity values modify opacity.

A Pixel Mask modifies the opacity of whatever it is applied to.

A Pixel Selection:

• modifies the opacity of pixels being copied to the clipboard/pasteboard
• modifies the opacity of a destructive filter's effect
• is resampled to the integral mask, which modifies opacity, of a non-destructive Live Filter, Adjustment or Fill Layer.

 

[CyberAngel]

3 minutes ago, lepr said:

The document Pixel Selection isn't present in the Layers panel, but it is present in the Channels panel.

Each of its pixels is a numeric intensity value, exactly like the pixels of a Pixel Mask. The intensity values modify opacity.

A Pixel Mask modifies the opacity of whatever it is applied to.

A Pixel Selection:

• modifies the opacity of pixels being copied to the clipboard/pasteboard
• modifies the opacity of a destructive filter's effect
• is copied to the integral mask, which modifies opacity, of a non-destructive Live Filter, Adjustment or Fill Layer.

 

Only if you modify the transform manually though. Question is why?

[lepr]

9 hours ago, CyberAngel said:

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!

You are misunderstanding me (which may be a fault of my communication skills).

I did not mean fuzzy/blurry stretched Pixel Selection (PS) will cause a  copy of an image to look out of focus. I meant the copy will have semi-opaque pixels at its boundary.

A Pixel Selection modifies opacity, just like a raster mask modifies opacity.

Stretching a Pixel Selection is the same as stretching a raster mask: a sharp boundary between full opacity and full transparency can become feathered by the introduction of semi-opacity.

A Pixel Selection can be larger than the marching ants indicate because the ants do not enclose selection pixels which have a value of less than 50%.

 

[CyberAngel]

12 minutes ago, lepr said:

You are misunderstanding me (which may be a fault of my communication skills).

I did not mean fuzzy/blurry stretched Pixel Selection (PS) will cause a  copy of an image to look out of focus. I meant the copy will have semi-opaque pixels at its boundary.

A Pixel Selection modifies opacity, just like a raster mask modifies opacity.

Stretching a Pixel Selection is the same as stretching a raster mask: a sharp boundary between full opacity and full transparency can become feathered by the introduction of semi-opacity.

A Pixel Selection can be larger than the marching ants indicate because the ants do not enclose selection pixels which have a value of less than 50%.

 

But this is my issue, if you do know the manipulation of the selection (marquee) then there is no extra pixel on the width at all. It's weird that there is no handles to modify your selection or even the ability to manipulate the transform. And even with what you say, I have been able to every now and then be able to paste it back into the section by changing the transform with no extra pixel.

There might be a reason for it to work the way it does, but I do not see it.

 

[lepr]

59 minutes ago, CyberAngel said:

It's weird that there is no handles to modify your selection or even the ability to manipulate the transform.

There are handles for geometrically transforming a Pixel Selection (PS) when you enable Quick Mask mode and activate the Move Tool. Quick Mask mode allows you to manipulate a PS as if it were a raster mask, including painting and applying destructive filters, because a PS and a raster mask are two manifestations of one thing - a raster grid of values used for modifying the opacity of other objects or effects, and a transformation matrix.

A PS has a transformation matrix, as do other raster objects in Affinity, and so geometrically transforming the selection is non-destructive (that is, its original pixels are preserved while the entries of the transformation matrix are changed). You can exit Quick Mask mode after performing a transformation and then re-enter it to see that no blurring of the PS has occurred.

However, when the PS is actually used, for example, when duplicating a region of an image or creating a mask, values for modifying the resulting object's opacity are calculated by bilinear resampling of the PS to the destination space. That bilinear resampling may introduce partial opacity where you were expecting a hard boundary between full opacity and full transparency.

[GarryP]

36 minutes ago, lepr said:

There are handles for geometrically transforming a Pixel Selection (PS) when you enable Quick Mask mode and activate the Move Tool.

This has the same result as if you manipulated the height/width via the Transform Panel – the selection pixels are squashed/stretched.
It is the squashing/stretching of the selection pixels which the OP wants to avoid.

[David in Яuislip]

If you need a sizeable selection marquee where the selection stays sharp edged then the marquee tools go in the bin and you have to use a shape
Trouble is the shape usually has a stroke and the fill opacity needs reducing so I use a macro
Construct a rectangle roughly where you need it, run the macro, press V and resize with the handles or transform panel
Select/Selection from layer & delete

It shouldn't be necessary but it is, even works with the cat

ShapeSelectionSanity.afmacro

[lepr]

1 hour ago, GarryP said:

This has the same result as if you manipulated the height/width via the Transform Panel – the selection pixels are squashed/stretched.
It is the squashing/stretching of the selection pixels which the OP wants to avoid.

As usual, whatever I write gets misinterpreted.

I did not say, or even indirectly suggest, using handles in Quick Mask has a different result to using the Transform panel. 

I did say that Quick Mask with Move Tool provides handles in response to the OP saying: "It's weird that there is no handles to modify your selection or even the ability to manipulate the transform."

I even explicitly quoted the sentence to which I was responding, FFS!

[GarryP]

I think this thread is starting to get a bit too jumbled with slightly different conversations going on at the same time.

I think a reasonable summary would be:

• The OP wants to be able to change the width/height of an existing rectangular pixel selection without getting extra/sub pixels.
• This currently cannot be done in the Affinity applications, either by using the Transform Panel, Quick Masks, or other methods.
• The ‘workarounds’ given by various people are not good enough for the OP.
• The OP has created a new request thread asking for what they want.

I think we can probably leave it there to stop further complications/misunderstandings.

[R C-R]

14 minutes ago, GarryP said:

• The OP wants to be able to change the width/height of an existing rectangular pixel selection without getting extra/sub pixels.
• This currently cannot be done in the Affinity applications, either by using the Transform Panel, Quick Masks, or other methods.

As I have mentioned before, I have no problems doing this using the Transform panel. I'm not sure why others can't.

[Brian_J]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

As I have mentioned before, I have no problems doing this using the Transform panel. I'm not sure why others can't.

It could be the size difference between your initial selection (made with one of the Marquee Tools) and the final selection (selection size edited in the Transform panel) is not large enough to produce sub pixels that are visible, or that appear to affect the copied/pasted layer. I’m not sure if I’m describing this correctly, but that’s how I understand it.

The affect editing a pixel selection has on the edges of the selection are not always evident or easily detectable… that’s one of the things that makes this topic confusing.

The explanations that @lepr has provided are consistent with the results I get when editing a pixel selection in the Transform panel or in Quick Mask mode.

Have you tried making a small selection (say, 10 x 10 px), and increasing the selection quite a bit (say, 500 x 500 px) in the Transform panel?

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Brian_J said:

Have you tried making a small selection (say, 10 x 10 px), and increasing the selection quite a bit (say, 500 x 500 px) in the Transform panel?

Yes, & I still have no problems setting that selection to whole pixels, positioning it wherever I want in the document, & copying/pasting from a pixel layer without getting any 'sub pixel' or antialiasing issues. I just have to make sure that in the Transform panel the all the values do not include any fractions, & that the pixel layer I am copying from is also pixel aligned.

[Brian_J]

4 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Yes, & I still have no problems setting that selection to whole pixels, positioning it wherever I want in the document, & copying/pasting from a pixel layer without getting any 'sub pixel' or antialiasing issues. I just have to make sure that in the Transform panel the all the values do not include any fractions, & that the pixel layer I am copying from is also pixel aligned.

We are getting our wires crossed somehow. As far as I know, it’s not possible to avoid the issue the OP described.

If you feel like providing a file showing an example, I’ll take a look and see if I can replicate it.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

We are getting our wires crossed somehow. As far as I know, it’s not possible to avoid the issue the OP described.

If you feel like providing a file showing an example, I’ll take a look and see if I can replicate it.

Just use the OP's test file. With no layer selected, change the selection size to 224 x 248 px in the Transform panel (the selection values should be shown there if you select one of the marquee selection tools). Now change the X & Y values until the selection is directly over the 73389.png layer with the top left edge positioned (in this file) at 608 & 631. Copy & there should be no sub pixel issues.

Admittedly, that last positioning step is a bit fiddly, so I usually use the Quick Mask method to move it into place & together with snapping & Force Pixel alignment, I zoom in as needed to make sure it remains pixel perfect.

Copied & pasted layer added to test with added paste.afphoto to show what I get.

[lepr]

30 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

As far as I know, it’s not possible to avoid the issue the OP described.

R C-R is avoiding the issue by misunderstanding what the OP and the rest of us are doing, and doing something different. He is not resizing a Pixel Selection. He is moving a Pixel Selection by whole pixels. This is absolutely typical. I blame the heat down in Texas.

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, lepr said:

R C-R is avoiding the issue by misunderstanding what the OP and the rest of us are doing, and doing something different. He is not resizing a Pixel Selection. He is moving a Pixel Selection by whole pixels. This is absolutely typical. I blame the heat down in Texas.

I am both moving & resizing the marching ants pixel selection. I am just doing that while no layer is selected so it has no effect on any pixel layer. If you want to resize the selection without it causing any issues with any pixel layer, just make sure no layer is selected while you do that.

Then, once the selection's size & position is what you want to copy from a pixel layer, select that layer in the Layers panel & do the copy.

[Brian_J]

@R C-R Okay, I see the issue.

Take a look at the 73389.png resized layer in your file. Notice how all sides of the graphic (the last 3 or 4 pixels on each edge) are semitransparent? That's the issue that is caused by resizing a pixel selection before copying.

The issue can present itself in different ways. In the OP's case, the pasted layer had an extra 1 px width — the right edge has 1 px of semitransparent pixels (the color is almost imperceivably). Other times, like you experienced, all edges of the pasted pixel layer have semitransparency. I don't know what causes different outcomes... maybe it's related to the anchor point, sequence of steps, method used... I have no idea.

[Return]

Take a read on this

 

[Brian_J]

10 minutes ago, Return said:

Take a read on this

Similar looking outcome, but unrelated issue.

[R C-R]

38 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Take a look at the 73389.png resized layer in your file. Notice how all sides of the graphic (the last 3 or 4 pixels on each edge) are semitransparent? That's the issue that is caused by resizing a pixel selection before copying.

OK, I see that now. But try this as a workaround: Use the Column Marquee Tool to make a 1 px wide selection on the right edge of the original 73389.png layer, positioned over that 'extra' column of pixels. Then make sure the original 73389.png layer is selected & use the Eraser Tool to remove that.

Now the size should be 224x248 so a copy & paste should work without the issue. History included with this test workaround.afphoto file....

[Return]

49 minutes ago, Brian_J said:

Similar looking outcome, but unrelated issue.

It's the new (underlying)pixel grid that's at fault and in all three programs.
Take it as you see fit.